Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Colonel Sir Thomas Vansittart Bowater, baronet, late Member for the City of London, and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained, and our sympathy with the relatives.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Adelphi Estate Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Lee Conservancy Bill [Lords],

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill [Lords].

Read a Second time, and committed.

Caledonian Power Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),

Adjourned Debate on Amendment [8th March] to Second Reading further adjourned till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (BRITISH TROOPS, WAZIRISTAN).

Major Macnamara: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that British troops in Waziristan still receive no wood allowance during the summer months and are, therefore, put to personal expense, as they have to buy the wood in order to provide themselves with hot water; and whether he will arrange for wood to be issued all the year round in the future?

Captain Water-house (Comptroller of the Household): My right hon. Friend is asking the Government of India for a report, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend on its receipt.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

AUSTRIAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government intend to propose to the League Council that refugees from Austria should be placed under the protection of the League of Nations?

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take the initiative in using League of Nations machinery for dealing with the problem of refugees with special regard to the Austrian situation?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As I informed the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 16th March, His Majesty's Government are giving consideration to this question, the importance of which is fully appreciated, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

CAROLINE AND MARSHALL ISLANDS.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resignation of the Japanese Government from the League of Nations, he can explain why that Government is still exercising a mandatory authority, on behalf of the League of Nations, over the Caroline and Marshall Islands; and whether His Majesty's Government will take appropriate steps at Geneva to end this anomalous situation?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): On 22nd January, 1937, the Council of the League of Nations adopted a report in which the opinion was expressed that Japan, whose status as a member of the League of Nations ended on 27th March, 1935, considered rightly that she was still bound by the obligations of the mandate which she exercises on behalf of the League, in conformity with the principles laid down in Article 22 of the Covenant. His Majesty's Government do not propose to re-open the question.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the exercise of the mandate by a nation no longer associated with the mandatory authority not lead to an unsatisfactory position? Will not the Government take some action to put the matter right?

Mr. Butler: I have referred the hon. Member to the report adopted by the League, which acknowledges this position, and I have said that His Majesty's Government do not propose to re-open the subject.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the principle adopted is that a non-mandatory nation should exercise a mandate under the League? Is that acceptable to the Government?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that the League is not the mandatory authority in this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask to whom the Japanese nation make their report in respect of their mandate? Do they make their report to the League?

Mr. Butler: I shall require notice of that question.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that the mandatory nation are carrying out the terms of the mandate?

Mr. Butler: I shall also require notice of that question.

BRITISH CONTRIBUTION.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Prime Minister what was Great Britain's contribution to the League of Nations for 1936–37; whether, seeing that all nations pay upon the basis of one currency, he can state the effect upon this country's contribution of the devaluation of the Swiss currency in 1937; and what arrears are now unsettled?

Mr. Butler: As the answer contains some detailed figures, I will, with the hon. Member's approval, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The contribution of His Majesty's Government to the League of Nations for the year ended 31st December, 1936, was 3,021,593 gold francs. The contribution for the year ended 31st December, 1937,

was 2,490,531.75 gold francs. The reduction in the contribution for 1937 was largely due to the devaluation of the Swiss franc, but in view of the many factors which would have to be taken into account it would be difficult to arrive at the percentage of this reduction which is directly attributable to this cause. As regards the last part of the question, the contributions in arrear on 28th February last amounted to 1,497,854.07 gold francs.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN COLONIAL AREAS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to the League of Nations, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the experimental control for 10 years of certain British and foreign colonial areas by an international staff responsible to the League?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are unable to accept this suggestion.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Prime Minister intend to pursue always a policy of purely British exclusiveness in regard to this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in accordance with the resolution passed on 2nd February at the last meeting of the League Council, His Majesty's Government have examined, in consultation with other similarly interested Governments, the feasibility of any further steps which may contribute to a just settlement of the Sino-Japanese conflict?

The Prime Minister: The terms of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers are familiar to His Majesty's Government, who have, however, no indication that the present moment is opportune for any active steps in the direction indicated in the resolution. The situation will continue to be closely watched.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether British merchants are being allowed by the Japanese military authorities to send their Chinese employés to move merchandise into and out of British-owned warehouses in the occupied area in the international settlement in Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: British subjects have for some time been able to deal with their property at British warehouses and I


have no reason to suppose that they are now prevented from sending Chinese employés to handle it.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister how far hostilities have now moved from Shanghai; and what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to secure the withdrawal of Japanese troops from the International Settlement and to assist the British community to restore the trade and industries of the port?

Mr. Butler: The main front has moved about 200 miles from Shanghai, but severe fighting between Chinese guerilla bands and Japanese troops has occurred within 60 miles of the city. His Majesty's Government are doing everything in their power to ensure a return to normal peacetime conditions.

Mr. Moreing: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Settlement police are perfectly able to maintain order throughout the whole of the International Settlement; and will he take steps to protect British trade and the trade of other countries, and see that the Japanese troops are removed from the Settlement?

Mr. Butler: As I said in the original answer, His Majesty's Government are doing their best to ensure the return to normal peace-time conditions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House upon what grounds the Japanese justify the retention of troops in the Settlement?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman may not realise that they have the same rights as other countries as regards stationing of troops in Shanghai.

Mr. Moreing: Does my hon. Friend really suggest that the Japanese occupation of Yangtse-pu and Hongkew is comparable to the position of the British, American and French in Shanghai? The cases are entirely different.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister the number of British merchant vessels in Spanish Government ports, or on any voyage from or to Spanish Government ports, which have been, respectively, sunk, damaged or detained by insurgent or unknown air, surface or underwater

craft; in how many cases have the British Government made a protest to the Spanish insurgent authorities; in how many has compensation been claimed; and in how many cases it has been received?

Mr. Butler: Four British merchant vessels were sunk in this manner; 10 were captured and detained in Nationalist ports, being later released; and so far as my information goes some 12 have been damaged, mostly during air raids on Spanish Government ports. His Majesty's Government have protested in every case where it has been possible to establish responsibility. As regards compensation, no specific claims have yet been presented to the Nationalist authorities by His Majesty's Government, though the right to submit claims in suitable cases has been reserved.

Mr. Roberts: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the total claims are likely to be?

Mr. Butler: It is usual, I understand, to submit claims of this nature after hostilities have ceased, and all these claims are at the present moment being examined.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Can the hon. Gentleman say what his answer means in reference to Nationalists? Who are the Nationalists? Is he talking about the rebel insurgents?

Mr. Roberts: Has the hon. Gentleman any information in his possession showing the total claims made by British companies?

Mr. Butler: We have had claims put in, but they are all being examined, and some of them appear to be rather inflated.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: In cases where the damage was done not by insurgent aeroplanes, but by Italian aeroplanes, will the claims be presented to the Italians?

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether the information in the possession of the British Government as to the transfer of four Italian destroyers to General Franco's Government in the late autumn of last year was forwarded to the Non-intervention Committee; and, if so, what action was taken?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister the date on which His Majesty's Government first received an intimation that General Franco's forces had acquired four additional destroyers; at what date, if at all, did His Majesty's Government place this information before the Non-Intervention Committee; and what steps, if any, did they take to obtain information upon the country of origin of these warships?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and I have stated that there were reports to this effect in the autumn of last year. The possibility of sponsoring alleged breaches of the Non-intervention Agreement before the Non-intervention Committee has repeatedly been considered by His Majesty's Government. Early experience, however, showed the virtual impossibility of proving such breaches, and it was this consideration which prevented His Majesty's Government from taking action in this particular case.

Mr. Roberts: I understood from the answer to a question the other day that there would be non-intervention, and is it not the fact that the Non-intervention Committee itself does not collect evidence and that only the Governments collect evidence? Am I to understand now that the Governments do not present this evidence to the Committee?

Mr. Butler: The Governments have the right to sponsor claims before the Nonintervention Committee. At the same time, the International Board have officers who can, by observation, collect the evidence.

Mr. Roberts: Is it the fact that the observation officers present their reports to the British Government and not to the Non-intervention Committee?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir, the officers are employed by the International Board and are answerable to the board.

Mr. Attlee: It is not a question whether they report to the board. The point is, who brings up the question of breaches of non-intervention? Is it the Government or the officers of the board; or is it only the Government who can bring it up?

Mr. Butler: The Government have the right to sponsor claims before the Nonintervention Committee.

Mr. Attlee: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. Have the officers the right to initiate proceedings before the Non-intervention Committee, or only the Government?

Mr. Butler: The officers have not that right.

Mr. Attlee: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any claim will be put forward, or have the Government put forward any claim?

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Can my hon. Friend say whether, if the Government make this claim, they will also call attention to the similar transfer of a fleet of 300 Russian tanks to the Barcelona Government?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the speech on 16th March, 1938, in the Italian Chamber of Deputies by General Guiseppe Valle, Under-Secretary for Air, in which the rôle of Italian aviation in the Spanish war was described; and whether he will have the relevant passages circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to newspaper reports of this speech, but I am not prepared to take the action suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister take steps to have the newspaper reports verified, and if he finds that they are verified, will he circulate the relevant passages in the way suggested?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not think that that is part of my duty.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in the officially controlled Italian Press giving a verbatim account of what General Guiseppe Valle said; and will he not consider circulating that for the information of the House?

Colonel Nathan: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state, according to the latest information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, the respective approximate numbers of German and of Italian military personnel and surface and underwater vessels and aeroplanes of German or Italian origin, and the approximate amounts of German and Italian war


material at the disposal of the Spanish insurgents; whether there has been an increase or diminution of the same since 21st February, 1938; and what proportion the same, respectively, bears to the total personnel, vessels, aeroplanes, and material at the disposal of the insurgents?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I hope, realise that it is impossible for His Majesty's Government to obtain detailed and exact information of this nature.

Colonel Nathan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this question does not ask whether the Government will obtain information, but what information is in the possession of the Government, be that information little or great?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Cannot the collection of this information be left to the French and the Russian Governments?

Mr. Butler: I have answered previously the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question. It is impossible for the Government to give this information, and it is difficult to obtain the exact nature of it to verify it.

Colonel Nathan: Can the hon. Gentleman give such information as the Government have upon these matters?

Mr. Butler: As I have said in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I cannot vouch for its accuracy, and, therefore, could not undertake to give it.

Colonel Nathan: Irrespective of the accuracy of it, will the hon. Gentleman give the information?

Mr. Crawford Greene: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many soldiers fighting in the Republican forces in Spain are not of Spanish origin but are exiles from their own countries and have lost their nationality, and part of their reward for their military services to the Republican Government is the bestowal of Spanish nationality; and whether, in considering the withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Spain, His Majesty's Government have decided to class them as alien volunteers or as Spanish nationals?

Mr. Butler: This is a matter for the consideration of the Non-intervention

Committee and I can assure my hon. Friend that they are fully aware of the problem. I am not, however, at present in a position to give any information on the subject.

Mr. Greene: Are His Majesty's Government taking into consideration the fact that the Government granting this nationality is recognised neither by Germany nor Italy?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take in view of the recent resolution passed by the National Directorate of the Italian Fascist party that Italian troops were an essential factor in General Franco's recent victories and that they would establish a new civilisation in Signor Mussolini's name along the western shores of the Mediterranean?

Mr. Butler: I have seen a report in the Press of the document to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not consider that it necessarily bears the interpretation which he places upon it

Mr. Strauss: As the document is quite clear that the Western Mediterranean may be a new Mussolini dominion, are the Government prepared to do nothing in view of that open admission?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend said on Thursday last that he was prepared to accept the word of the Italian Government that they have no territorial, political or economic aims in Spain.

Sir H. Croft: With regard to statements in foreign countries, is the Under-Secretary aware that an attack was made on His Majesty's Government by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) in Spain?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether any report has been issued or can be made available to Members concerning the nature of methods and local distribution of the assistance given by the International Red Cross in Spain to which His Majesty's Government have contributed?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the practice of His Majesty's Government to bring to the


notice of the Non-Intervention Committee all verified breaches of the Nonintervention Agreement which are brought to their notice; and in how many cases has this practice been followed?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have asked the Non-intervention Committee to investigate information which had come into their possession regarding some 13 alleged breaches of the Nonintervention Agreement. The experience gained in the early months of the existence of the Non-intervention Committee made it plain that it was not possible to bring home to the Governments concerned such alleged breaches; and it was largely for this reason that the Observation Scheme was elaborated and put into operation, for the purpose of obtaining direct and impartial evidence. Since the putting into operation of this scheme there is not the same necessity for individual Governments to bring alleged breaches of the Agreement to the notice of the Committee, since the International Board are clearly in a far better position to secure evidence.

Mr. Attlee: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary has just informed me that only Governments can take action on these complaints, what happens with regard to the information that comes before the board?

Mr. Butler: I said that Governments had a right to bring these matters before the Committee. If the Committee receive this evidence from the International Board, there is no doubt they could take action among themselves in the matter.

Mr. Thurtle: Are we to understand that since the Non-intervention Agreement came into force the Government have no verified knowledge of any single breach of the Non-intervention Agreement?

Mr. Butler: What I said was that the Government have asked the Committee to investigate information which has come into their possession regarding some 13 cases.

Mr. Thurtle: Did the hon. Member not say that was before the Non-intervention Agreement came into force? What I am asking is whether since the Agreement came into force the Government have any knowledge in their possession, which

has been verified, of breaches of the Agreement?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is not the Government's reluctance to bring these alleged breaches before the Non-intervention Committee due to their reluctance to have the Italian Government convicted?

The Prime Minister: That is not true.

Sir A. Sinclair: I could not hear what the Prime Minister said.

The Prime Minister: I said that is not true.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister lay before the Committee the report of the "Times" correspondent in General Franco's territory, that new German and Italian air forces had been arriving recently?

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the Prime Minister deliberately conniving at a victory for General Franco?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to the Spanish Government and to the insurgent authorities the withdrawal of all troops and military material from certain areas and towns in Spain, in order that these could become centres of refuge for the infirm, women, and children under the supervision and administration of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, which presents, however, many difficulties.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the Under-Secretary not only consider it but recommend that steps be taken in that direction?

Mr. Butler: It is not the first time this question has been considered. We have found many difficulties, but I will give the matter renewed consideration.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Would it not be the best thing to withdraw women and children from Barcelona?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to allow the Navy to give any assistance in conveying non-combatant refugees out of the danger zone in East Spain or in protecting merchant ships used for refugees?

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): I have been asked to reply. As in the past, His Majesty's


Ships will afford such assistance in humanitarian work as is reasonably practicable. As regards the protection of merchant ships carrying refugees, I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the First Lord, on I2th July, to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell).

Miss Rathbone: In view of the fact that the sufferings of the population of Barcelona are largely caused by the action of the Government in forbidding the Spanish Government to buy arms—

Mr. Speaker: That is quite improper as a supplementary question.

Miss Rathbone: May I complete my question by asking whether the Government will allow the British Navy to evacuate refugees as they did in the case of the refugees of General Franco in the early days of the war?

Colonel Llewellin: The Royal Navy is evacuating any British subjects from Barcelona who wish to go. With regard to evacuating other refugees either from Barcelona or Valencia, the House may like to know that there is no blockade of these ports and that they can leave by ships which call at these ports daily.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICAN OILFIELDS (BRITISH INTERESTS).

Mr. Porritt: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is considering the possibility of joint action with the United States Government to prevent the entry of oil from British and American concessions which have been arbitrarily confiscated by the Mexican Government into British or American ports or territories;
(2) having regard to the recent expropriation of foreign oil interests in Mexico, whether he has any information concerning the intention of the Mexican Government to expropriate other mining and industrial investments owned by foreign interests in Mexico; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard British investments in that country?

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government propose to take any action in view of the expropriation by the Mexican Government of the property of

the Mexican Eagle Company shareholders?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further information respecting recent events in Mexico, particularly as affecting British subjects and British financial and commercial interests?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have under consideration the various steps which it might be open to them to take in order to deal with the situation which has arisen. His Majesty's Minister in Mexico City is keeping us fully informed, and we are in close touch with the British interests concerned. Hon. Members may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will do their best to safeguard British investments in Mexico, but in the meantime I may refer them to an assurance on the part of the President of Mexico reproduced in the Press of 23rd March that the expropriation methods taken against foreign oil interests would not be extended to other industries.

Mr. Porritt: Will my hon. Friend consider making a discrimination against the sale of stolen commodities in this country in favour of those which are imported under legitimate trade?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND AUSTRIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any estimate of the number of British subjects, other than tourists, at present living in Germany and Austria?

Mr. Butler: Exact statistics on this subject are not available, but the numbers of British subjects resident in Austria and Germany appear to be about 1,500 and 5,000 respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN BROADCASTS (ADVERTISING IN ENGLISH).

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to prevent the broadcasting of advertising programmes in English from foreign wireless stations?

Mr. Butler: Representations have been made to foreign Governments on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that 400 ex-service men in Manchester are now receiving public assistance because their pensions are insufficient for their maintenance; will he inquire how many similar cases there are in other parts of the country; and will he then consider reviewing the whole position of disabled ex-service men so that the whole cost of their maintenance will fall on his Department?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I would remind the hon. Member that compensation under the Royal Pension Warrants approved by Parliament is provided solely in accordance with the particular degree of disablement resulting from each man's war service. As such, disability pensions were not designed, and could not be used in all cases to provide full maintenance in conditions of need arising from unemployment or other causes.

Mr. Tinker: Does the hon. Member think it will be a good thing for recruiting that it should be known in £he country that this is the way ex-service men are being treated at the present time?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not think the hon. Member appreciated the last part of my answer:
As such, disability pensions were not designed, and could not be used in all cases to provide full maintenance in conditions of need arising from unemployment or other causes.

Mr. Groves: asked the Minister of Pensions (1) whether he is aware that Mr. S. F. Maskell, 36, Great Eastern Road, E.15, case No. A427,957 P.R.H.C., is unable to work owing to war injuries; and whether he will cause immediate investigations to be made;
(2) whether he will investigate the case of Henry Archard, 31, Waddington Road, E.15, pension No. 11/5, 276,881, registered No. 299,928, Labour Corps; whether he is aware this man was demobilised in March, 1919, and was granted a pension for chronic bronchitis of 10s. a week, subsequently increased to 28s.; and whether, as this man is now in Whipps Cross Hospital, he will make inquiries as to his position and the maintenance of his wife;
(3) whether he is aware that W. A. Wickens, No. 11/M 462,970, 19, Roberts Road, Stratford, E.15, is still incapacitated from work as the result of shrapnel mobile in his body, and that the Ministry refuses to grant full allowances; and whether he will give immediate attention to this case?

Mr. Ramsbotham: As in each case the question only appeared on the Order Paper on Saturday it has not been possible to obtain the particulars of the three cases referred to in time for answer to-day. I will, however, look into the cases and communicate with the hon. Member as early as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

BACON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will ensure that under the new scheme for the bacon industry the suggested subsidy of £1,000,000 does not go direct to increase the profits of feeding-stuff combines; and whether, in view of the fact that feeding-stuff prices have risen on an average by 50 per cent. between February, 1936, and February, 1938, he will consider making provision in the forthcoming legislation to control these prices in relation to the costs of production of feeding-stuff or recovering any part of the proposed subsidy for pig prices from the profits of the feeding-stuff suppliers?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The recent rise in the cost of feeding-stuffs was due to world conditions which are outside the control alike of the Government and of the feeding-stuffs trade. It is not, therefore, practicable to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: While the rise in the price of feeding stuffs may be outside the Government's control, the subsidy is not outside their control, and is it not the case that in all previous subsidies the subsidy has gone to those who have the most and not to those who are most in need? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that this subsidy does not go to increase the profits on feeding stuffs?

Mr. Morrison: I will take care to see that it goes to those who deserve it. As I have said, the question of feeding stuff prices is outside our control.

PRODUCTION.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can supply a table of agricultural production for the year 1931–32, comparable with that issued on 7th March; together with a statement

Estimated Total Production of the Principal Agricultural Commodities in England and Wales in the years 1931/32 and 1936/37 and the net increase or decrease between the two years.


Product.
Unit.
Production.
Increase or Decrease in 1936/37 compared with 1931/32





1931/32. (June-May).
1936/37(June-May).




Meat.


Beef
…
'000 cwt.
7,121
8,719
+
1,598


Veal
…
'000 cwt.
611
775
+
164


Mutton and Lamb
…
'000 cwt.
3,392
3,344
−
48


Pigmeat
…
'000 cwt.
5,931
7,616
+
1,685


Dairy Products.


Milk (a)
…
Million galls.
1,250
1,314.5
+
64.5


Butter (b)
…
'000 cwt.
570
390
−
180


Cheese (b)
…
'000 cwt.
460
200
−
260


Cream (b)
…
'000 galls.
1,346
1,300
−
46


Skim milk (b)
…
Million galls.
3.5
3
−
0.5


Poultry.


Fowls
…
Thousand head
24,000
28,000
+
4,000


Ducks
…
Thousand head
2,200
2,600
+
400


Geese
…
Thousand head
500
580
+
80


Turkeys
…
Thousand head
420
570
+
150


Eggs.


Fowls
…
Millions
2,803
2,835
+
32


Ducks
…
Millions
67
60
−
7


Wool
…
Million lbs.
66
55
−
11


Farm Crops, (d)


Wheat
…
'000 tons
962
1,378
+
416


Barley
…
'000 tons
773
663
−
110


Oats
…
'000 tons
1,239
1,080
−
159


Mixed Corn
…
'000 tons
84
75
−
9


Rye
…
'000 tons
14.7
8.6
−
6.1


Beans
…
'000 tons
120
93
−
27


Peas
…
'000 tons
52
31
−
21


Potatoes
…
'000 tons
2,454
2,814
+
360


Sugar Beet
…
'000 tons
1,663
3,391(c)
+
1,728


Hops
…
'000 cwt.
169
252
+
83


Miscellaneous, (d)


Seeds Hay
…
'000 tons
2,608
1,674
−
934


Meadow Hay
…
'000 tons
5,317
4,733
−
584


Wheat Straw
…
'000 tons
1,346
1,850
+
504


Barley Straw
…
'000 tons
801
617
−
184


Oats Straw
…
'000 tons
1,573
1,247
−
326


Mustard Seed
…
'000 tons
9.2
13.9
+
4.7


Fruit, (d)


All Kinds
…
'000 cwt.
5,371
12,545
+
7,174


(a) Estimated total production, excluding milk fed to livestock.


(b) Estimated farm production.


(c) Revised figures since 7th March, 1938.


(d) Crops of first named year.

POULTRY INDUSTRY.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now make a statement as to the results of the research work carried out in connection with the diseases of poultry?

showing the net increase or decrease for the two periods?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The progress of research in poultry diseases, in common with all other branches of agricultural research, is described in the volume entitled "Reports on the work of Agricultural Research Institutes in the United


Kingdom," published annually by His Majesty's Stationery Office, and in the biennial reports of the Agricultural Research Council.

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet reached a decision upon the principle of the establishment of a Poultry Commission on the lines of the Livestock Commission to advise on the control of the imports of eggs in shell and improve graded selling at home; and when he expects to be able to make a full statement on the subject?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have no statement to make on this matter at the present time.

HOME-GROWN FOODSTUFFS.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the intensification of our Defence preparations, he will now consider and announce a comprehensive plan for dealing with an increase of home-grown foodstuffs in this country?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 28th February.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is of vital importance that this country must have more home-grown foodstuffs?

Mr. Morrison: The amount of homegrown foodstuffs is increasing.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. Porritt: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of foot-and-mouth disease in the county of Lancaster have been notified in the years 1936, 1937 and 1938, respectively?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No case of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in the county of Lancaster in the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 to date.

Mr. Porritt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread belief in Lancashire that the immunity of the county from this disease is due to the use of lime on the pastures, and will he, therefore, have the matter investigated?

Mr. Morrison: I was not aware of the belief, but I hope the recent subsidy given to lime will fortify it.

WORKERS (STATISTICS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many agricultural labourers were employed, on the average, during the years 1931–32 and 1936–37?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The average number of agricultural workers in England and Wales in 1931 and 1932, as recorded in the June returns received from occupiers of holdings over one acre in extent, was 707,044. The corresponding figure for the years 1936 and 1937 was 636,115.

Mr. Williams: Are we to take it that we are producing more food in this country with 65,000 fewer labourers?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the reply I am circulating. The general inference is, I think, true.

TOPHAM FERRY FARM, SYKEHOUSE.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the facts arising out of the dispute concerning the terms of tenancy of Topham Ferry Farm, Sykehouse, near Doncaster; and whether he will have an inquiry into this case with a view to amending the law relating to tenancy agreements?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have only seen this morning the statement sent to me by the hon. Member on 25th March relating to this case, which has not previously been brought to the notice of my Department. I am making inquiries into the matters raised, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (COLCHESTER).

Mr. Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications were received in Colchester for new telephone lines in each of the past five years, respectively?

The Postmaster-General (Major Tryon): The number of applications in each of the last five years is as follows:


1933
…
…
…
142


1934
…
…
…
182


1935
…
…
…
252


1936
…
…
…
321


1937
…
…
…
299

I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that owing to a number of cessations in recent months all outstanding applications in Colchester are being met at once.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Postmaster-General how many ex-soldiers, ex-sailors, and ex-airmen were appointed to positions in his Department in the year 1937, and how many civilians?

Major Tryon: During the year 1937, 10,137 ex-service men were appointed to situations in the Post Office. The figures for civilians are not available and could not be obtained without a disproportionate amount of trouble.

Sir A. Knox: Are the number of these appointments given to ex-service men increasing year by year or not?

Major Tryon: Out of a total male adult staff of 202,437, no fewer than 119,850 are ex-service men.

Mr. Kirby: Will the Postmaster-General see that when these men are taken on by the Post Office they are paid properly?

TELEPHONE SUBSCRIBERS (DEPOSITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the accumulated amount of deposits at present in hand which have been made by persons who were telephone subscribers but are not now subscribers and whose deposits have not been repaid?

Major Tryon: Such deposits amount to approximately £30,000.

Mr. Day: Are any steps taken to trace the depositors to whom the money belongs?

Major Tryon: Letters are sent out in every case, but in a large number of cases the individual is not to be found.

Mr. Thorne: What becomes of the interest on this £30,000? Do you pinch it?

Major Tryon: No, Sir.

METER MACHINES.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the number of postal franking machines in use in this country and the country of origin of such machines; and whether he will consider granting any rebate to the users of these machines?

Major Tryon: The number of postage meter machines in use in this country is approximately 6,500. Apart from about 150 machines which, with few exceptions, were made in the United States of America, all the machines are wholly of British manufacture. As regards the second part of the question, rebate of postage on correspondence passed through these machines would not be justified, as their use results in no net saving of work to the Post Office.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand that when these 150 machines want replacing they will be replaced by British machines?

Major Tryon: I cannot give that undertaking, because they are purchased by private firms for their own use.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Is there a saving on account of the stamps?

Major Tryon: The only saving is to the senders of the letters. They do not have to stick on postage stamps.

EMPLOYMENT (NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Postmaster-General whether persons, one or both of whose parents are British subjects by naturalisation, are thereby debarred from employment at the Post Office?

Major Tryon: The answer is in the negative, assuming that the candidates themselves are natural-born British subjects.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Postmaster-General be good enough to look into a number of cases where applicants have been turned down?

Major Tryon: I shall be happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

OFFICE OF WORKS (TIMBER SUPPLIES).

Mr. Day: asked the First Commissioner of Works the quantity and value of timber of Empire and/or foreign origin, respectively, that has been purchased by his Department during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): As nearly all the timber


used by my Department is provided by contractors for incorporation in buildings or in supplies of furniture which are the subject of lump sum contracts, I regret that it is not possible, without the expenditure of an unreasonable amount of labour, to give even approximate statistics on this point. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that it is the practice to specify Empire timber almost exclusively for building contracts and that, for furniture, Empire timber is used whenever it is suitable and is not unduly expensive.

Mr. Day: Can the First Commissioner of Works say what the difference in cost would be?

HEALTH CONDITIONS.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the First Commissioner of Works what steps are being taken by his Department to bring the condition of Government offices into conformity with the standard required by the Public Health Act, 1936?

Sir P. Sassoon: The administration of the Public Health Act, 1936, is the responsibility of local authorities and the Act provides that a local authority may agree with the appropriate Government Department that any provisions of the Act shall apply to a Crown property. I have received no application for an agreement in pursuance of this provision in respect of any Government offices.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the First Commissioner of Works what provision is being made in Government offices to protect the staffs employed against air attack?

Sir P. Sassoon: A survey of all Government buildings with a view to selecting the most suitable accommodation for refuge purposes is well in hand. Accommodation which provides the best structural protection against blast and splinter is being selected, and it is also proposed to provide against the dangers of gas and broken window glass. First-aid posts will also be provided. Arrangements have been made for dealing with the risk of fire from air attack—I gave details of these in an answer to a question on Thursday last by my hon. Friend the Member for the Moss-Side Division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth).

The training of staff in anti-gas precautions in Government offices and the organisation of first-aid parties is not a matter for my Department, but I understand that a good deal of progress has been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the deputation from the British Legion; and what are the intentions of the Government with respect to removing the present injustices to ex-service men, and especially those who are prematurely aged and suffering from the ill-effects of the abnormal conditions of life in the War?

The Prime Minister: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on 14th March to the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith).

Mr. Sexton: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern aroused by the exposure of the Government's ingratitude to ex-service men in the recent report of the British Legion?

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of cotton mills in Lancashire that have closed down since July, 1931?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): According to the returns received in connection with the Surveys of Industrial Development, which have been held only since 1932, the net reduction during the years 1932 to 1937 in the number of establishments in Lancashire engaged in cotton spinning or weaving amounted to 214

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND REGISTRATION.

Commander Marsden: asked the Attorney-General whether he can now announce a decision about the selection of a new area or new areas under Section 120 of the Land Registration Act, 1925?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. and gallant Friend on 3rd March.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL DEFICIENCY ACTS (WILLIAM HARGREAVES).

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the case of William Hargreaves, 31 years old, married, Territorial, who was arrested at the Ministry of Labour Office, Bootle, by two plain-clothes officers, who informed him they had orders to detain him until an escort arrived from the asylum in which he had been incarcerated 14 years ago, on the grounds that Hargreaves had not been subject and amenable to proper supervision during the 12 years he had been at liberty; and what steps he is taking to have this case reviewed with a view to releasing Hargreaves?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): My right hon. Friend has caused inquiry to be made in the case of William Hargreaves. He was sent to an institution for mental defectives on 10th July, 1925, on the authority of an order made under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913. He was allowed to leave the institution on licence on 22nd December, 1926. The periods were extended from time to time until 11th May, 1934, when the licence was revoked on the ground that its conditions had been broken. The patient was then treated as an escape from licence and was eventually brought back to the institution on 3rd February, 1938. He was again allowed to leave the institution on licence on 9th March. The Board of Control have reviewed the whole of the circumstances of the case, and as a result have directed William Hargreaves' discharge from the order under the Mental Deficiency Acts made in respect of him.

Mr. Logan: Is it not a fact that William Hargreaves has been sane all along and that he was released last week simply and solely because of the question being raised in the House, the examination having taken place only during the week; further, is it not a fact that this man has been away from an institution for 12 years, that he is considered to be sound mentally and that the Territorial officers under whom he has been working say that he is perfectly sane; and will the Minister say what inquiry, if any, he intends to make if a man is considered to be insane, sent to an asylum and treated as a convict, and what compensation he intends to pay?

Mr. Bernays: Special reports were made in August last year about the case of Mr. Hargreaves, and the specialists came to the conclusion that he was not a proper person to be detained in an asylum. It was within the discretion of the board to accept that recommendation or not, and, in fact, they did not act upon it.

Mr. Logan: In view of the outrage upon public liberty, I intend to raise this question on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position of a married officer who has exercised his option to draw marriage allowance and children's allowance afloat if he receives a shore appointment where service quarters are provided for him?

Colonel Llewellin: If employed on shore in an appointment in which for service reasons he cannot live with his family an officer will continue to receive marriage and children's allowances if quarters are provided for him. If provided with quarters in which he can live with his family he will receive children's allowance only, but if married and childless he will doubtless exercise his option of serving under present conditions until his next promotion. It may make the position clear if I add that the rules for allocation of quarters are being revised so that single quarters will not be allocated to a married officer unless:—(a) his presence is required for service reasons, or (b) his appointment is temporary, or (c) he wishes for single quarters and some are vacant.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for that answer, will he tell me whether I am right in assuming that married officers receive marriage allowance for the simple and sole reason that they are married, and if that be so, why is it that they do not receive such marriage allowance when they are on half-pay?

Colonel Llewellin: That is quite a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If I put that specific question on the Order Paper, will my hon. and gallant Friend give me a reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE DEFENCE (STRAITS SETTLEMENTS' GIFT).

Mr. Cary: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement with regard to the gift of $500,000 by the Straits Settlements to His Majesty's Government towards the cost of Empire Defence?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Governor has reported to me that on 14th February the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements adopted a motion for the payment of 500,000 dollars (approximately £58,000) to His Majesty's Government as a gift towards the cost of the Imperial Defence of the British Empire. The Governor has at my request expressed to the Council the grateful appreciation of His Majesty's Government for this further generous gift, which is additional to the Colony's annual contribution towards the cost of the defence of the Straits Settlements and to the sums voted for the Colony's volunteer naval, military and air forces. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of this further gift from the Colony and of the spirit of co-operation of which it is still another practical example.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SMALL HOLDINGS (HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that less than one-half of the applicants for small holdings in the Highlands and Islands during the past six years have been provided with holdings, action can be taken by him to expedite the matter and thereby minimise to some extent further depopulation?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The possibility of advantageous settlement of applicants in holdings in the Highlands and Islands is under constant review. Land settlement can proceed only as suitable opportunities offer, but I can assure the hon. Member that no suitable opportunity is missed.

Mr. Leslie: Does not the Minister think that when the splitting up of a farm is under consideration and it has been examined and reported on, the applicants should receive a decision without a lapse

of several months, and in some cases over 12 months?

Mr. Wedderburn: I should be glad to know of any particular case in which the hon. Member thinks there has been any undue delay, but there is always a large number of cases being considered, and it is not always easy to fit them into the holdings that are available.

Mr. Robert Gibson: As 50 per cent. of last year's applicants remain unsatisfied, will the Minister inform me what is the total number of unsatisfied applications now at the Scottish Office?

Mr. Speaker: The question refers to the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Gibson: I mean the total number in the Highlands and Islands.

Mr. Wedderburn: I think that was answered last week. The number of applications for small holdings during the last six years was 673, of which 316 were provided with holdings. It must not be assumed that all the remainder were suitable.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any statement to make regarding the present position of the lobster fishing industry in Western Scotland, especially in the hot summer and autumn months; whether he has considered proposals to extend and develop that industry; and whether he has any statement to make?

Mr. Wedderburn: In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to the question which he addressed to the President of the Board of Trade on 8th March. I would add that the Fishery Board for Scotland are prepared to investigate any special difficulties to which their attention is called. In reply to the second part, the possibility of developing lobster fishing on the West Coast is one of the matters receiving the attention of the Highlands and Islands Sub-committee of the Scottish Development Council, and any recommendations which that committee may make on the subject will receive full consideration.

Mr. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the landings of coal fish in the United Kingdom and at the ports on the West Coast of Scot-


land, respectively, for the years 1907, 1927, and 1937, respectively; and why there is a dearth of coal fish on the West Coast and Western Islands of Scotland?

Mr. Wedderburn: The quantities of coal fish landed in Great Britain in the years 1907, 1927 and 1937, were in round numbers 338,000 cwts., 427,000 cwts. and 664,000 cwts. The corresponding figures for the West Coast of Scotland were 31,000 cwts., 8,000 cwts. and 7,000 cwts. According to my information the smallness of the landings in the West of Scotland is due not to a scarcity of this kind of fish, but to the poor price which it realises in the markets.

Mr. Gibson: Is not the Minister aware that on the West Coast of Scotland, coal fish, which are used as bait in lobster pots, are so scarce that lobster fishers have to buy herring for that purpose?

Mr. Logan: Can the Minister tell us what are coal fish?

Mr. Wedderburn: I think they are saithe.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (BRITISH CITIZENS).

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has considered the position of the ex-Unionist minority in Eire who were born British citizens and desire to retain that status but at present have to travel with a Free State passport; whether the question of citizenship was discussed in the recent conversations with the Minister of Eire; and what steps he is taking to enable these persons to retain their British nationality?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Harrington): So far as the first and third parts of the question are concerned, I have nothing to add to the public statements made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor at the time when the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935, was before the Dail. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it a fact or not that the minority in the Irish Free State still retain their British nationality and hold British passports?

Marquess of Hartington: Yes, they definitely retain their British nationality?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

AIRPORTS, GUERNSEY.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many airports were licensed by his Department in the island of Guernsey in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): The licensing authority for airports in the island of Guernsey is the Royal Court of Guernsey and not the Air Ministry, but my information is that no airports were licensed for the first time in the years quoted.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS, LIMITED.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the changes contemplated in the composition of the board of Imperial Airways, Limited, will take place?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not yet in a position to say when the contemplated change in the composition of the board of Imperial Airways will take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, LONDON.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information in connection with the explosion in Phillip Lane, in the City of London, on 21st March, the cause of the explosion, and how many people were injured?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This explosion occurred in premises which were being equipped as an electrical transformer sub-station. It appears to have been due to a flashover, the cause of which has not been definitely ascertained. Two workmen were injured and are in hospital, but are reported to be making good progress. Two others received slight burns only and are back at work.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN (GERMAN RESIDENTS).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any estimate of the number of German subjects, other than tourists, at present living in Great Britain?

Mr. Lloyd: The number of Germans registered with the police is approximately 20,000, of whom about 11,000 are women.

Mr. Benn: Is it the case that these Germans are compelled to report to the German Consulate, and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: I was not aware of that.

Sir Percy Harris: Does that figure of 20,000 include Austrians?

Mr. Lloyd: No, it does not include Austrians. There are about 14,000 Austrians.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (LOAN).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give any information in connection with the loan of £10,000,000 to the Turkish Government by the Bank of England?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am informed that there is no question of the Bank of England making any loan to the Turkish Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS OF ART (IMPORTATION).

Sir P. Harris: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury by what authority certain sculptures executed by eminent foreign artists designed to be exhibited in this country have been refused admission by the Customs authorities?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am not aware that the Customs authorities have refused admission to sculptures imported for exhibition. Imported sculptures are chargeable with duty under the Import Duties Act, 1932, unless a certificate is given by the Director of the Tate Gallery that they are works of art of the class or description to which the Import Duties (Exemption) (No. 15) Order, 1937, applies. The hon. Member appears to have in mind a recent case where, in the absence of such a certificate, the importers of certain articles were informed by the Customs that the appropriate duty must be paid. I am now advised, however, that it is not incumbent on the director to be satisfied of the artistic merit of articles for which his certificate is required, but that he is

only called upon to decide whether the articles are works of art of a class or description to which the Exemptions Order applies. The director is willing to reconsider previous applications on this basis.

Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that works of two famous sculptors of European reputation have been refused certificates as works of art, and that a letter of protest has been signed by a number of art critics, including those of the "Times" and the "Daily Telegraph"?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have explained the position to the hon. Baronet. If he wishes, I can show him photographs of the articles and he will understand how doubts may have arisen.

Sir A. Sinclair: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mean that these particular cases are to be reconsidered?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT (LONDON RAILWAY FARES).

Sir Reginald Blair: asked the Minister of Transport whether the discussions which took place last June to bring greater uniformity of fares from Stanmore, Metropolitan line, and Edgware, Morden tube, have brought any result?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): The London Passenger Transport Board inform me that their discussions with the railway companies on this matter have not been concluded. I would remind my hon. Friend that these discussions are directed to securing a greater measure of uniformity of fares when the works now in progress to enable trains to be run from the Bakerloo tube section of the board's lines on to their Stanmore section are completed. I understand that this connection is not likely to be opened before the summer of 1939.

Sir R. Blair: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman know that these discussions have been going on for more than a year; and will he do his best to expedite the London Passenger Transport Board in coming to a decision?

Captain Hudson: The Minister has no jurisdiction.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK (CARRION CROWS).

Sir P. Harris (for Mr. Graham White): asked the First Commissioner of Works for what reason he has given instructions for the carrion crows in St. James's Park to be shot?

Sir P. Sassoon: It has been the practice for many years to shoot carrion crows in St. James's Park during the nesting season, as they take the eggs of the water-fowl and attack the young birds.

Sir P. Harris: In view of the fact that very few of these birds come to London, does the right hon. Gentleman think it justifiable that they should be shot?

Sir William Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is driving these carrion crows to Kensington and that they wake me every morning?

Sir P. Sassoon: We try to keep them down to one pair in Kensington Gardens.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS).

Mr. Guinness: asked the Prime Minister what Parliamentary Questions affecting the Air Ministry should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the Under-Secretary of State for Air, respectively?

The Prime Minister: Parliamentary Questions on matters concerning civil aviation, meteorology and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve should in future be addressed to the Under-Secretary of State for Air. All other Parliamentary Questions dealing with Air Ministry matters will be taken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAIDS PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. T. Smith (for Dr. Haden Guest): asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to ask for the co-operation of ex-officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the special brigade Royal Engineers, known as the Gas Corps, in the organisation of air-raid precautions volunteers; and how many of such personnel are now serving as air-raid precautions officers?

Mr. Lloyd: I understand that many of these men have already offered their services to local authorities who will be very

glad to make use of their experience. In reply to the last part of the question, I have no information.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Lewis: I rise on a point of Order and to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker. There appears to be a growing practice on the part of certain hon. Members, of putting on the Order Paper more than the three questions to which they are entitled to ask for oral answers on a given day. No doubt that is something which any of us may do by mistake. For example, one may give notice of a question for a future date, forgetting that one has already given notice of some other question or questions for that same date, but the practice to which I wish to draw your attention, Sir, seems to point to something rather more than that. There have been cases recently of hon. Members having put down four and six questions and in one case ten questions, to be answered orally on the same date. There was a case of an hon. Member who on a Friday gave notice of four questions to be answered by the same Department orally on the following Monday. It seems hard to believe that that could have been done by accident. I submit that the practice imposes an unfair burden on the Department which is called upon to provide the answers and on the responsible Minister. I am aware that the Clerks at the Table do what they can to stop this practice, but it is not always easy to prevent it when questions are handed in one at a time, even on the same day, let alone when it is done on different days. I submit that, so far as it is deliberate, the practice is an abuse of the Rules of the House, and I ask you, therefore, Sir, what can be done to prevent it?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will remember that the number of oral questions which can be asked on the same day has been limited to three since 1920. Originally they were unlimited, but they had been reduced to eight in 1909 and to four in 1919. That was done not by any Standing Order but by general agreement of the whole House. If more than three questions appear on the Paper in the name of the same Member, the questions which stand fourth or later on the Paper are not called by the Speaker, and are either answered in writing or


deferred until another day. The accumulation, to which the hon. Member referred, of Members' questions beyond the prescribed limit arises through the handing-in of questions at the Table on different days to be answered on the same day. I have come to the conclusion that that is, no doubt, through inadvertence on the part of hon. Members. The practice causes very considerable inconvenience and throws a great deal of unnecessary work on the Departments in framing answers to questions which cannot be asked orally. I should, therefore, be obliged to hon. Members if they would exercise some care not to hand in more than three questions for any one day.

Mr. Thurtle: May we take it, Mr. Speaker, that you have not within your knowledge any information which suggests that any new and sinister practice is developing, such as was suggested by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis)?

Mr. Speaker: As I have said, I think it is through inadvertence.

Mr. Stephen: Is there anything in the Rules to prevent a Member putting in four questions? On occasions there may be four questions or even five to which a Member is anxious to get speedy answers, and I do not see why in exceptional circumstances more than three questions should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker: As I have said, there is no Rule, but the number is generally agreed by the House, and, that being the case, it is best for hon. Members to confine themselves to putting down three questions and not to go beyond that number.

Mr. Cocks: Does that Ruling refer to the number of unstarred questions?

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Stephen: On the point of unstarred questions, my experience has been that very often we have to wait a long time before we get an answer to an

unstarred question, and since there is no Standing Order on the matter, I have seen it, since I have been in the House, that there have been occasions when Members have put more questions on the Paper than they are able to ask orally. I would certainly object to this liberty of hon. Members to put questions being taken away from them in this way.

Mr. Speaker: Nothing is being taken away from hon. Members which they have got now. As I have said, and now say for the third time, it has been generally agreed to by the whole House.

Mr. Stephen: If my hon. Friends and I are not in agreement, I do not see how it can be taken that there is general agreement of the whole House on this matter, and the fact that Members do deliberately sometimes put down more than three questions shows that there is not general agreement. I certainly want to protect the rights of Members in this respect, and I think many hon. Members above the Gangway agree with me on that matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take to-night in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried?

The Prime Minister: We desire to take the first three Orders on the Paper. We hope to conclude the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Cinematograph Films Bill by half-past seven o'clock, and then to resume and conclude the Debate on Civil Aviation. The Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is exempted business, and is usually a formal proceeding.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(The Prime Minister).

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 90.

Division No. 148.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.


Albery, Sir Irving
Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Aske, Sir R. W.
Bennett, Sir E. N.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Assheton, R.
Bernays, R. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Birchall, Sir J. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Balniel, Lord
Blair, Sir R.




Bossom, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Porritt, R. W.


Brass, Sir W.
Grimston, R. V.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Harmon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Bull, B. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rayner, Major R. H.


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Richards, G. W. (Skipton)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cary, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson. Cant. A.U.M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Salmon, Sir I.


Channon, H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Keeling, E. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Scott, Lord William


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Selley, H. R.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Simmonds, O. E.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W D.


Cross, R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crossley, A. C.
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lewis, O.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dawson, Sir P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Duggan, H. J.
Maitland, A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Touche, G. C.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wakefield, W. W.


Elmley, Viscount
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Errington, E.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Moreing, A. C.
Warrender, Sir V.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, R. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Fox. Sir G. W. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wells, S. R.


Furness S. N.
Munro, P.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gluckstein, L. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Goldie, N. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Peake, O.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Granville, E. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Petherick, M.



Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.
Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Chater, D.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Adamson, W. M.
Cooks, F. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Daggar, G.
Hall, G. H. (Abordara)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Banfield, J. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Batey, J.
Day, H.
Hicks, E. G.


Ballenger F. J.
Ede, J. C.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hopkin, D.


Benson G.
Gallacher, W.
Jagger, J.


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, B. W.
John, W.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.







Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Kelly, W. T.
Montague, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Kirby, B. V.
Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, C.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Stewart, W. d. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Lathan, G.
Oliver, G. H.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Lawson, J. J.
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Leach, W.
Parker, J.
Thorne, W.


Leonard, W.
Pearson, A.
Thurtle, E.


Leslie, J. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tinker, J. J.


Logan, D. G.
Ridley, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Lunn, W.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Watkins, F. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


MacLaren, A.
Sexton. T. M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shinwell, E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Marshall, F.
Silverman, S. S.



Mathers, G.
Simpson, F. B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Maxton, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Lords Amendment, in page 43, line 21, column 1, leave out "12½," and insert "15," disagreed to.

MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put and agreed to—[Mr. Stanley.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

TITLE.

Lords Amendment: In line 5, after "films" insert:
to make provision as to the wages and conditions of employment of persons employed by makers of cinematograph films.

3.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The insertion of this Amendment is consequential on a new Clause relating to fair wages and conditions of employment which was inserted in another place. The Clause was accepted by the Government in view of a promise given in Committee by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade' that if it were possible to introduce a fair wages Clause into the Bill, it would have the support and blessing of the Government. It may be for the convenience of the House, as the question is raised in the Title, if I deal briefly with the Clause in question and the two other Amendments which are consequential to it. The new Clause will come in page 30, line 17. It follows, I am informed, exactly the accepted form of Clauses of this nature, and it meets the wishes expressed on all sides of the Committee. The consequential Amendments are those in page 38, line 9, and the insertion of a new Sub-section at page 40, line 17.
The object of these two Amendments is to make clear the application of the Fair Wages Clause in relation to laboratory workers engaged in the processing of films covered by the Bill. The definition of "making" introduced into Clause 43, which is the latter of these Amendments, means that the Fair Wages Clause will apply to persons employed on processing

work in connection with actual film production whether they are employed in the studio itself or by outside processing firms. I do not think, in view of the previous history of this Clause and the general desire that it should be introduced, that there is any need for me to take up further time with it.

3.57 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I should like to express our thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for accepting this Fair Wages Clause. Hon. Members who were members of the Committee will remember that we had a similar Clause on the Order Paper, but at that time it was out of order because of the Short Title of the Bill. However, the right hon. Gentleman felt that this would be the only safeguard of the employés in a very difficult industry, and he agreed to accept the Clause and to extend the Title to make the Clause possible. This has been a very uncertain industry, and while there are 8,000 people in it unemployed compared with 2,000 employed, they have obviously no bargaining power. As the right hon. Gentleman desires to stabilise the industry, to get it on a firm foundation, and to better the relationship between the employés and the producers, the insertion of this Clause will be better for the industry itself. We are glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to accept it.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 36, after "doubled" insert "or trebled."

3.59 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the first of a series of Amendments which deal with the same point, namely, what we call the treble quota. This Amendment, the next two upon the first page of the Amendment Paper and the long Amendment on page 2 all deal with the same point. On page 5 also there are Amendments on page 27, lines 21, 25 and 27, which are all part of the same scheme. This proposal for what we call the treble quota has a Parliamentary


history. On the Committee stage I said that for the purpose of encouraging the making by foreign companies of pictures in this country which were designed for the world market, I proposed to introduce further measures of this kind.
As the House will recollect, there is already a provision in the Bill that a film which costs three times the minimum of labour costs is to count twice for quota purposes. On the Report stage I put down an Amendment which would have the effect of providing that a film which costs four times the minimum labour costs would have counted three times for quota purposes. I apologise for the fact that it was not possible for me to be there to defend my own proposal. In particular I must apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I left at the very last moment to hold the field, though I am sure that the advocacy of this proposal did not in the least suffer from my failure. But at the time, it will be recollected, considerable opposition to this proposal was voiced in some quarters of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health withdrew it at the time, with a proviso that as I was unable to be there and he was not in a position to consult me, if I thought it necessary for the benefit of the industry I would draft an Amendment to be moved in another place.
An extension of this character is of the greatest importance to the industry. I am extremely anxious to see the American and foreign renters filling their quota in this country as far as possible by films which are intended for, and capable of, sale outside the limited market of this country. I want to see them making not the sort of film which up to now they have been making in order to fulfil the quota, but the sort of film which will find a place in the American and the world market. I think that that is of immense importance. It is not always easy to distinguish what we mean by a British film. Sometimes it seems only to depend on the original nationality of some particular gentleman who has since got naturalisation. But the great importance to my mind is not this very fine distinction between a British film and a film produced in Britain, but the fact that a film of this character has to be made in the first instance for the British market, and

has therefore to be a film which is in sympathy with Britain, which is acceptable to the people of this country, and which if shown abroad will be good and not bad propaganda for the people and institutions of Great Britain. Because of that I am anxious to see the foreign renters filling their quota by the bigger type of film of this kind.
There is another reason. It seems to me that in so far as the American renter fills his quota with the type of film that we are encouraging in this proposal, that is of definite assistance to the small independent producer in this country. In this country there is a number of producers who, from their financial restrictions and lack of experience, from the fact that they have no "stars" under contract with them, are not able as yet to enter into this competition in films for world sale, and yet can make quite good pictures of a smaller type for which there is a demand as second feature pictures. At the present time they have to meet intense competition from similar pictures being made by the foreign renters to fulfil their quota. In so far as we can get that quota filled by the bigger type of picture, in so far will the pressure of competition on the independent producer of the smaller films in this country be reduced, and in so far will his prospect of successful production be increased.
Although it was not possible for me to be here during the course of the last Debate, I did study very carefully the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speeches which had been made and the objections which had been voiced against the proposal. It seemed to me that there were two main lines of objection. The first was that it was possible that a proposal of the kind would reduce the opportunity for employment in this country. Hon. Members will realise that to fill a quota in this way is actually more expensive to the producer than to fill it by a number of smaller films observing the exact legal minimum; but still hon. Members felt that in some cases perhaps the producer anyhow would spend more than his legal minimum, and that to give him extra credit for it might reduce the number of films, and therefore, the amount of employment. That was one line of objection. The other line was that if the renters were to fill a large proportion of their quota by these treble credit films, the number of films would be largely reduced even if their quota


was increased, and that that would restrict the choice of the exhibitor and make it difficult for him to have an attractive programme.
I studied both those objections, and I have attempted, and I think succeeded, in the Amendment which was proposed on my behalf in another place and which I am now asking this House to agree with, to meet both those objections. The objection with regard to the reduction of the opportunities for employment was quite simple to meet. Whereas in the original suggestion made on Report stage it was suggested that a film which had cost four times the minimum labour cost, that is to say £30,000, should count three times for quota, I have altered that four to five and the minimum to £37,500. With regard to the other point, I have attempted in the long proviso which will be found at the bottom of page I and on pages 2 and 3 of the Amendment Paper, to safeguard the position of the exhibitor, and to ensure, as the Amendment does, that the exhibitor's position with regard to the number of films available is no less safeguarded than it would be in the bill if this new provision had never been introduced. That is done in this way: The position of the exhibitor under the Bill, if this Amendment were not introduced, would be as follows: The renter can fill a certain proportion of his quota by buying foreign rights. He can fill the rest of his quota by the buying of films which are entitled to a double credit. That is to say, he must as a minimum provide in actual footage half of that quota which remains to be filled after buying foreign rights.
I have inserted a proviso in the Bill, in order to see that that position is not altered by this new extension of the principle of the multiple quota. It is now laid down that, leaving aside the amount of the quota which the renter fills by the buying of foreign rights, he must fill at least 50 per cent. of the remainder of his quota by actual footage of film. He cannot make unlimited use of the multiple credits bound up in this double and treble quota proposal. Further, it seemed to me that in a matter of this difficulty it was well that the Films Council should have a real opportunity of investigating the manner in which it worked and if necessary of suggesting appropriate remedies.
Therefore, I have included in the proviso a reference to the Films Council, and I have given power to the President of the Board of Trade, on the recommendation of the Films Council, and in the usual manner by an affirmative Resolution, to do one of three things: He can either abolish this new idea of treble quota altogether if he finds on experience that it does not work; or he can lower or raise this 50 per cent. limitation which, as I have explained, we have introduced—the 50 per cent. which must be filled by actual footage—or, if the Film Council so advise, he can abolish altogether that proviso with regard to the limitation of the action of the treble quota and the renter can fill his whole quota, if he so cares, in this manner. The House will agree that in these alterations I have made a genuine effort to meet objections which were raised to a proposal of this character on the Report stage. I hope that I have managed to get rid of the difficulties which were then seen in the proposals, and I now commend the Amendment to the House, because I do believe it to be of extreme importance to the industry and as likely to lead to the production in this country of films primarily for the market of this country but which will be able to find their way into the markets of the world as well. Therefore, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords in their Amendment.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Since I was the Member responsible for putting the case against treble quota previously, I must say a few words in order to explain why I can now support the treble quota. The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that the last proposal clearly endangered a large body of people who did not want to default against the law. The treble quota could have applied to the whole of the notional footage, reducing the number of films to one-third; and quite clearly a position would have arisen which would have been very awkward for the exhibitors in this country. However, I support the new proposals for two major reasons. First of all the right hon. Gentleman has removed the danger of imposing default upon unwilling people. He has limited: the notional footage permissible under the alterations of treble quota down to 50 per cent., which is leaving us exactly as we were prior to the introduction of these treble quota proposals. Since the producer


of films is required to produce no less films than he needed if he made all £22,500 films and claimed double quota for them, from that point of view the position stands to-day that this new proposal leaves us exactly as we were prior to the introduction of treble quota on Report.
My second reason for the course I am taking is that the £30,000 labour costs referred to in the treble quota proposals on Report are now being increased to £37,500. That means two things. It means that five times the normal cost of an ordinary film will be expended instead of four times that cost, which means more work for the producers of pictures in this country, and that is a very important thing indeed. Secondly, it means that the films ought to be superior films, if there is anything in the point the greater the cost the better the film. It does not always work out in that way, but in theory the fact that five times the amount of money is to be spent before triple quota can apply is a clear indication of the desire of the Minister for better quality films. Therefore, from the point of view of employment and the production of better quality films, the proposal is now all to the good. We are likely to have films that may find their way into the world markets, and I am one of those who believe that unless and until we do qualify for the world markets as well as our own market we shall never have the film industry in this country which we are entitled to expect. To the extent, therefore, that this arrangement will fructify in the production of better films, capable of meeting the needs of the world markets, I think the proposal is all to the good.
There is, perhaps, a fourth point which encourages me to support the new proposal, and that is that to the extent to which producers of higher quality films fulfilling the highest cost test do take advantage of it, the margin left for independent producers will be widened. The opportunity will be there for them to produce more films than if double or treble quota had not been introduced. I have not seen anything said by producers regarding these treble quota proposals, but it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman has done two things at one time. He has not only encouraged the production of higher quality films, but is

creating a bigger opportunity for independent producers. For those reasons I am prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman's new proposals, because I think he has fairly and squarely met our submissions on the Report stage. Some of the producers, I do not know whether to call them the smaller producers, or the independent producers, or what kind of producers, have an opportunity to start a new phase in film production in this country. They can lay a foundation stone upon which they will be able to build. I hope they will not hesitate to copy their American parallels. If there is anything to learn from them, I hope they will learn it quickly. If they wish to supply the foreign market they must know exactly what that market calls for. If they can take advantage of the opportunity now presented to them it ought to be good for the industry, and they may look back upon this new set of proposals as the starting point of a new orientation.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I fully agree that the President of the Board of Trade has gone some way to meet the objections which were voiced in this House on the Report stage, but I am still doubtful whether we shall find that the idea of encouraging producers to spend more money upon their films will give us better films with which we can capture world markets. One can quite well say, as has been argued by the President of the Board of Trade, that in order to do away with the "quota quickie" it was necessary to set a minimum cost below which no film could claim to come under this Bill, but to say that the more money above that minimum that is spent on a film the better chance we have of establishing a British film industry—to give bribes, shall we say, to producers to spend more money on films—is simply not the way to go about it. If producers have a really good story, good technicians and good actors they will, one assumes, go ahead and produce a first-class film, and will not need the stimulus of the Government saying, "If you spend a little more money you will be given certain advantages." One could go on indefinitely in that way, saying, "If instead of £37,500 you spend £50,000 in labour costs we will give you more advantages; and if you spend £60,000 will give you yet further


advantages." I do not think we shall establish a British film industry in that way. It is quite possible that certain producers will try to get the further advantages held out by adding to the cost of a film. The argument will be, "Cannot we have an extra crowd scene? Cannot we take the actors and actresses down to the races, or have a ball room scene? It will be worth our while. We shall be building up the labour costs and we shall get more quota advantages."
I do not believe that by bribing renters or British producers to spend more money we shall capture the world markets. We are tackling the problem by wrong methods. We are taking too commercial and material a view of the film industry. I do not believe the success of a film depends ultimately on the amount of money spent on it. Now and again that may be a factor, but I do not believe the greatness of a film can be judged by the amount spent on it. Anyone who has a really good film in mind would, presumably, spend the right amount of money, without being unduly extravagant; all would very rightly do their very best to produce a good film at a minimum of outlay from the point of view of securing better profits. Therefore, I must express my doubt as to the value of the proposal before us. It may succeed, and I hope that it will, but I feel that it is based upon a fundamental fallacy which will be proved in the years ahead when we look back to see what the Bill has accomplished.

4.24 p.m.

Sir Adrian Baillie: On the Report stage I was unable to support the proposal for treble quota, primarily because it had been introduced at the eleventh hour and I was too slow-witted to be able to appraise its merits and repercussions without further time for consideration and consultation, but in the form in which the treble quota has been reintroduced and carried in another place, and seeing that the objections which were raised have been met in a wholly admirable way, I should now like to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on the change he has made. I also feel a few apprehensions as to whether the ideals in view in introducing the treble quota will in fact materialise. I felt in regard to the double quota that it might

not be a sufficient inducement to our American friends to make good British pictures in this country, and, equally, when the treble quota was introduced I had doubts whether it would prove to be a sufficient inducement, but in the form in which it has been drawn up to-day I feel that it will be a real inducement to American renters and American producers to fulfil their quota requirements by making good pictures for the world market. I cannot agree with the apprehensions felt by the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss). It is true that up to a point the cost test is not a guarantee of quality, but if we are to produce British films which are to be sold and distributed in world markets, we shall have to compete with Hollywood, and we all know how the cost of production there has grown in recent years. A few years ago £100,000 was regarded as a lot of money to spend upon a film, but to-day £400,000 is not considered excessive, and it is competitors who think in those terms that we shall have to meet if we want to get into the World markets.

Mr. G. Strauss: Does the hon. Member think that a film on which £37,500 has been spent can compete with that type of film?

Sir A. Baillie: I can answer that observation by saying that the £37,500 represents labour costs only, and that probably the total cost would be £70,000 or £75,000, and I suggest, after having consulted certain people in the industry, that once a foreign renting company or an American producing company has to go to the expense of £75,000 upon a film, it will realise that it is too big a sum to get back from this country alone and that it will have to push the film in the world market, and will probably not be content with an expenditure of £75,000 and may spend up to £275,000 in order to ensure its success. For these and other reasons I would like to offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman upon introducing this encouraging feature into the Bill which, I think, will do much to help British industry in years to come.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: In spite of what the President of the Board of Trade has said, I am inclined to take the same pessi-


mistic view as my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss), but I suppose that it would be somewhat indiscreet to disagree too fundamentally with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Let us be quite sure of what we are going to get by this Amendment and of what we are not going to get. The President said in his concluding remarks that he had no doubt that this proposal would ensure, as far as any Bill could ensure it, the production of more films which would be nearer to British requirements. I do not think it will do anything of the kind. I took down the right hon. Member's words. He said, "Films of British character." I do not think this Amendment will produce any more films of British character than any other feature of this Bill. What it will do, probably, is to ensure that more first-feature films will be made in this country. That may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing. I suppose that from the point of view of the technicians, the film stars, and all others who are engaged in the making of a picture, it will be a good thing if we can have more first-feature films made in this country, but the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) knows very well—in fact he said it—that in the world markets we shall have to compete with foreigners. That means that we have to spend more money on the production of our films. It also means that more Hollywood pictures will be turned out, in order that those pictures can be sold in the American market. I have no objection to more first-feature films being produced, but I am under no illusion whatever that those films will be truer to British character than those we have hitherto had under the aegis of Hollywood.
One point upon which the right hon. Gentleman touched is that we have made provision for a review of the whole position by the Films Council—either upwards or downwards—as far as the 50 per cent. footage is concerned. That is a good thing. We have from the first tried to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of using the Films Council not only for things of this nature but for other things which were mentioned in Committee. I pay the right hon. Gentleman a tribute; it is as well that he has put this saving provision into the Amendment.
The important question is whether the Amendment will result in real reciprocity; in other words, whether it will result in more British-produced films, or films produced in this country, being sold in the American market or other markets of the world. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Lambeth I can only hope that that will be so. My knowledge of the subject is not so extensive as that of some hon. Members, but I believe, in view of the hold which Hollywood has at the present time in this industry, that Hollywood will not allow us, by this or by any other method, to crash into the American market to a greater extent than we have done hitherto. I cannot offer much evidence of the position which I have put to the House, but I can only echo the hope of the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment will enable us to get a better portion of the American and other markets. Although one result may be the production of more Hollywood pictures which do not represent British character, I shall be glad that I have supported the Amendment.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I strongly opposed the treble quota when it was brought before the House upon the Report stage. We all very much regretted at that time the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and we remember the difficulties in which the House was put in consequence. The Cabinet Minister who was in charge withdrew the proposal on the ground that something similar was to be introduced in another place. I congratulate the President of the Board of Trade upon the great ingenuity he has shown in producing this scheme, which is a triple quota but is equal only to a double quota. I did not like the double quota because I saw no reason why we should bribe the Americans to make decent films and fulfil their obligations. I should like a single quota, and with a high price at that, although I did not get very much support upstairs for my views. I believe that the Americans at the present time get about £8,000,000 out of this country, so far as I can make out, and they do not pay Income Tax upon it. There is no reason why we should go out of our way to assist them. The President of the Board of Trade is now asking us to agree to something which is in substance only what we agreed to in Committee. I must congratulate him on the way in


which he has rescued himself from a difficult position and has secured a triple quota scheme without doing any more harm than would have been done by the double quota.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Day: I should agree to any proposal which appeared to make for an improvement in British film production, but the President of the Board of Trade has made a mistake in thinking that the triple quota will have that result in this country. If hon. Members refer to answers given by the right hon. Gentleman to questions put in this House they will see that in three years 484 exhibitors could not supply their quota under the last Act. Those people had all broken the law and more or less committed offences. There were 17 renters in the same position. Are we to put the producers in a position in which they will not be able to compete, no matter what they may do, in the production of films that will go into the American market? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of labour costs. I saw a film last night which must have cost 15 times the labour cost mentioned in the Bill. I should think that it was not produced under £340,000 or £400,000. If we were able to produce films like that in this country we might be able to get into the American market, but with our limited knowledge of production it is impossible for us to crash into that market.
British producers do not bring all the people concerned in the production of films over here. The mistake they make is that they do not bring in the persons who are particularly useful in the organisation and the production of films. If you go to Hollywood—and I have been there several times—[Interruption.] If hon. Members do not want to listen to my experience I will sit down—you see there magnificent studios, all run by Britishers. The principal technicians, scenario writers, dressers and others are mostly Britishers. The whole outfit, right throughout, is controlled and run by British people. Producers in this country who are trying to produce British films that they hope will be successful in America make the mistake of bringing over a star artist or a star British producer. They may bring technicians, but they forget the scenario writers, dressers and others, and even the persons who

cut the film, who are British. We find that the people who make the wardrobes in Hollywood are nearly all Britishers. If they were to bring those people here and set up a complete organisation they would be able to get films comparable with those produced in America. Money alone will not make British films successful in the American market. We must give the Americans what they are used to. We have to give them an article which is as good as they can see.
Although I did not mention names, I referred on the Third Reading of the Bill to about a dozen films that had cost anything from £60,000 to £120,000 and had all been failures in the American market because they had not been done in the proper way. If we wish to produce films of British character we have to produce them in the same manner as they are produced in Hollywood. I remember some of the Hollywood producers who are now among the biggest, coming over here some years ago and trying to break into our theatrical market. It was hopeless, because they were not quite accustomed to our methods. In the same way we cannot break into the American market because we do not study American methods. If we wish our production to be able to command a world trade, we have to try to compete with the organisations which are competing so heavily with us at the present day.

4.41 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: I congratulate the Minister upon going a long way along the road which was indicated by some Members in the Committee. The greater advantage which we can give to the American renter the better it will be for our producers. With that end in view I moved an Amendment that the limit should be £50,000 with great advantages. We shall certainly benefit by the Amendment. In regard to what has just been said about costs of production I would remind hon. Members that if an American company produces a film which costs £150,000 or £300,000 it knows from its experience and from its calculations that the picture will pay. In this country we have made pictures costing from £120,000 to £160,000, but those pictures could never pay here; we must have a larger market.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I will add my congratulations to those which have been


offered to the President of the Board of Trade, whom we are glad to see back upon the Front Bench. I am glad to have this opportunity of refuting one or two things which were said in Committee and on the Floor of the House. There is no question that British film production has not, on the average, been good, but we have neglected to pay our tribute to the very fine films which have been made. A surprising number of superb films have been made in this country. I regret that in Committee we may have added to the discouragement of the industry by failing to give recognition to them. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) has been good enough to give us his Odyssey. He told us what he saw in Hollywood. I think he put his finger on exactly the wrong spot. He said that if we were to study the American market we could crash into it; in other words he wants us to delight the American public with imitation American films. Believe me, we have made some of the worst American films by bringing over here second-rate and out-of-date American stars and out-of-date producers. The one thing we do not want to do is to study the American market.

Mr. Day: You cannot make a profit unless you do.

Mr. Baxter: If I may quote Shakespeare in the presence of so great an impressario, I would suggest that this industry should repeat to itself:
To thine own self be true.
If we give expression to the genius, the tempo and the life of this country, and if we are prepared to spend the right amount of money, we shall succeed.
I commend this Amendment, and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for so skilfully bringing it through, because if we have to choose between a cheap, bad film and an expensive bad film, I should say, let us have the expensive bad film. Hitherto, under our legislation, owing to mishandling by the Americans and by the very wrong and unfair attitude of the American renters, the British film industry has been associated with nothing but cheapness and second-rateness. This Bill, for the first time, associates legislation with costly and first-rate production. You may have a work of genius

at a small cost, but in the end, whether you are building a house, or a motor car or a battleship, provided that your plans are good and your personnel are first-rate, the more money you spend on it the better it will be. For that reason I desire to add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to the President of the Board of Trade.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), I do not want to get angry with the Member for my neighbouring constituency, but, at the same time, I think he was a little off the mark in trying to make out that the Americans have been remiss in this matter, and that we British have been doing such marvellous work in producing films. If there was one thing that every Member who served on the Committee hoped for from this new legislation, it was that the history of the British film industry would be different during the next 10 years from what it was in the past 10 years. The difficulties during the past 10 years have not by any means been entirely due to the Americans. We know the financial practices that have been associated with the British film industry in the recent past, and I am sure that every Member in every part of the House will hope that, if our labours in the Committee, which are now being concluded here, have no other result, they will prevent a repetition of the kind of thing that has been happening in the industry during the last few years.
One point which I should like to put has not been mentioned at all in this discussion, and that is that the real people who make the film industry, whether the British or the American, are the people who pay their money at the box office and go to see the pictures. It does not matter what anyone else thinks; they are the people who count. This proposal is intended as a great effort on the part of the British film industry to get into the American market, but I think we ought not to lose sight of one important fact. Some people seem to think that the British working man and his wife go to the pictures once or twice every week no matter what is on. That is not so. There are many counter-attractions; there is a whole variety of recreations that the younger generation


are beginning to take up, and many of them are not content, when they have done their day's work, to go somewhere and sit quietly—they want to take part in something in which there is movement. To take one example, which is perfectly well known, the owners of hundreds of very small cinemas in the poorer districts are finding that the football pools are attracting people away from the cinema. They have not enough money for both, and so, if a picture is good, they decide that they will go to the cinema, but, if the pictures are not good, they stay at home and spend their money on football pools. Therefore it seems to me that the President of the Board of Trade is perfectly correct in doing all he can to try to encourage the production in this country of pictures of a good type, because, if that is not done, the money taken at the box office will go down and the whole thing will collapse.
As I said on the Second Reading, it seems to me that a good deal of misconception arises from the idea that, if a picture is made in the vicinity of London, it is bound to be a faithful representation of our British characteristics. That does not follow at all. It will be within the recollection of most Members of this House who go to the pictures that two of the finest representations of our British life of recent years have been made in Hollywood, namely, "David Copperfield" and "Cavalcade." They were remarkable representations, and after seeing them one left the cinema marvelling that they had been made in another country. I join in the general congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his recovery, which we hope is complete and thorough, and also on the fact that, in settling this thorny subject, he has clone so in the good old-fashioned British way, by compromise.

4.52 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I should not have risen had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day). He said, quite rightly, that British films have not been a success in America, and he put forward the suggestion that we should, as my hon. Friend has said, try to copy the Americans, though I admit that he did not use those words. He did not, however, tell the House that the reason why British films have not been a success in America

is not due to lack of quality, but to the fact that exhibitors and renters in America would not show them. They put them in cold storage, or showed them at wrong times when they could not possibly pay. They had no desire whatever to show British films in America. Why should they, when they are producing plenty of films of their own at Hollywood? Now the President of the Board of Trade is taking action under this Clause of the Bill to endeavour to force the Americans to show British films in America. If he succeeds in doing so by means of this particular provision in the Bill, he will deserve the heartiest congratulations of us all. I hope he will succeed.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Alan Herbert: I certainly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, and the House, on his return, but I cannot honestly join in congratulating him on this Amendment, though, like everyone else, I do not intend to oppose it. I really rise because my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) spoke of costly and first-rate productions. That not only carries the implication that what is costly becomes first-rate, but, when argued to its logical conclusion, is an extension ad absurdum of the barbarous and loathsome principle that money is a measure of merit. I raised my feeble voice in Committee against that principle, but I was defeated. Now, at the last moment, I cannot allow the Bill to go forth without at least one Member raising his voice in the House against it. Subject to this reservation, I support the Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 2, line 40, agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Special provisions with respect to British films rented in foreign countries.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 22, leave out from the second "as," to the end of line 23, and insert:
doubled or trebled for the purpose of renters' quota.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Although this Amendment is rather on the same lines as that which has already been considered, it is a different proposal. It was so inextricably bound up in drafting with the treble quota proposal which was put forward on Report that it fell with it, and it has been reintroduced as an Amendment in the other House. The object of the Amendment, which is the first of a series extending to the Amendment in page 5, line 21, is to meet the point of view, which was generally expressed in the Committee upstairs and was expressed in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland), that there should be some extension of what we call the reciprocity proposal, that is to say, the giving to the American renter of an opportunity of fulfilling his quota, not by making a film himself, but by buying the foreign rights of a British film, in the hope that, having bought those foreign rights for a substantial sum, he will press the exhibition of that British film in the American market.
As the Bill stands at the moment, in the case of a film which has cost not less than three times the minimum labour cost, that is to say, £22,500, and of which the foreign rights have been bought for not less than £20,000, that film will be allowed to count once for renters' quota. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend that and to say, in the case of a treble quota film, that is to say, a film which has cost five times the minimum labour cost, of which the foreign rights have been bought for a minimum of £30,000, the film shall be allowed to count twice for renters' quota purposes. This is an extension which I think will be generally welcomed by hon. Members.
I hesitate to say anything about the general principles of film making, which have been discussed from many angles on the last Amendment, and, in particular, I hesitate to say anything to make my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. A. Herbert) think that I regard either the film or the theatre in the light of a sordid money-making institution. Whenever I go to see my hon. Friend's contributions to either, I know that he has had in his mind no such low motive, but has always been thinking of art for art's sake. I want, however, to say one word in defence of what I know

appears at first sight to be a challengeable proposal—to try to get people to spend more money. It may well be said that you do not necessarily get a better film because you spend more money, and, of course, that is quite true. There have been films costing hundreds of thousands of pounds which, I have been told, have been scrapped by the producers because they were so bad, and there have been films made at much less cost which have been excellent; but I think everyone with any knowledge of the film industry will agree with me that, unless a film does reach a certain standard of production cost, that is to say, unless it is not obviously "done on the cheap," whatever its merits are, it has not, in the unfortunate circumstances of a sordid materialistic world, any chance of getting into the world market.
As things are at the moment—and we are dealing with the moment—a film costing £10,000 or £15,000 may not have any chance of getting a show in America, and that is why I want to encourage the production of a type of film which at least has an opportunity of being shown in the world market. I believe that there is a far better opportunity for films made in Great Britain to get into the world market, and particularly into the American market, than there has ever been before. The public are becoming very selective about their films, as has already been said. Hollywood has had its financial difficulties just as the London production industry has had its financial difficulties, and production in Hollywood has fallen off just as production in this country has fallen off. In the next few years there is going to be a shortage of good films, and I do not believe that the American renter, who, after all, has to study the man who ultimately controls the film industry, namely, the man who pays his shilling a week to go and see a picture, is likely, in a time of shortage of good films, to cut off his nose to spite his face and refuse to take a good film, which will fill his cinemas, simply because it is made in Great Britain. That may have been the case a few years ago when times were much more prosperous, but now, I believe, a good film is going to have a real chance all over the world, and I beg the House to agree with the Lords, because I believe that the Amendment will give added opportunity to get into a market which, more than ever


before, offers possibilities to the producers of this country.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 7, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 21, at the end, insert:
(4) If, and to the extent that, Section one of this Act has effect subject to the modification made therein by an order containing such a direction as is authorised by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of that Section, this Section shall have effect as if in Subsection (1) of this Section for the words 'doubled or trebled for the purpose of renters' quota 'there were substituted the words' doubled for the purpose of renters' quota or capable of being doubled under this Section, 'and as if in Sub-section (2) of this Section for the words' trebled for the purpose of renters 'quota' there were substituted the words 'capable of being doubled under this Section'.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Ernest Evans: Why is the Subsection in this Amendment called Subsection (4)? I cannot find Sub-section (3).

Mr. Stanley: I will look into the matter and see whether there has been a printing error. I am very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing my attention to it.

CLAUSE 4.—(Exemption in respect of films for which demand is limited.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 33, to leave out "said film" and insert:
fact that he has, before the end of the year beginning with the said date, acquired the film for distribution in Great Britain.

5.4 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Amendment are really drafting. Clause 4 deals with the case of specialised films which have only a limited circulation, and these two Amendments are designed to make clear the intention of the Bill, that someone who rents one of these specialised films shall not have it counted in determining the amount of quota to which he is

liable. The second of the two Amendments makes it clear that while the renter, by order of the Board of Trade, can obtain exemption for one year, if he rents the film after one year it is liable to quota only in respect of the later period. These two Amendments simply embody in better language the intention of the Committee.

CLAUSE 15—(Power of Board of Trade to alter quotas by order.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 2, leave out "ten," and insert "fifteen."

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next four actually deal only with the limits within which the Film Council can make recommendations for the alteration of the short film quota, but as it is, I think, a fact that you cannot discuss the limits within which alterations can be made without discussing the figures in the Schedule for the quota., it would perhaps be to the convenience of the House if, at the same time, we discussed the Amendments that have been made in another place on the Schedule. If hon. Members will look at page 9 and page 10 of the Lords Amendments, they will see a long string of Amendments to the Schedule.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): I quite agree with what the Minister has said. I think it would be to the convenience of the House to discuss the Amendments on the Schedule as well as this Amendment. I only want to point out that if we do, hon. Members cannot have another discussion on the Amendments when the Schedule is reached.

Mr. T. Williams: We quite agree that it would be better to discuss all the Amendments now.

Mr. Stanley: I am glad that hon. Members take that view; otherwise we might fix a limit here which would be inconsistent with the Schedule.

Captain Arthur Evans: Would my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that this in no way restricts the discussion which might take place on Clause 16?

Mr. Stanley: This has nothing to do with Clause 16, which deals with quite a separate point. If hon. Members will look at page 9 of the Lords Amendments they will see an Amendment: in page 43, line 7, column 1, to leave out "15" and insert "20"; and another Amendment: in line 21, column 1, to leave out "12½" and insert "15." These Amendments deal with long films, not with short, and will have to be discussed separately later.
This question of the amount of the quota in the case of the short film has' troubled many of us all through the discussions on this Bill. During the passage of the Bill through Committee we did raise exhibitors' and renters' quotas, and the effect of these Amendments which we are now discussing is to raise those quotas by another 5 per cent. All through, I have approached the question of short films and the producers of short films with more sympathy than that of long films and the producers of long films. I feel that short films have not lent themselves to some of the abuses which have taken place in connection with long films. Some of them are of real beauty and merit. I have been anxious to do whatever is possible to help the production of short films. On the other hand, I have always considered that we are much more ignorant on the subject of short films than on that of long films. Long films have been the subject of quota regulations for ten years, and we know pretty well what supply can be expected and what is the quality of that supply. The separate quota for short films is something new, and we have nothing like the data on which to judge how many films, and what quality of films, are likely to be available.
There is another consideration which many people, in their laudable desire to help the producer of short films, are apt to forget. Both the renter and the exhibitor have to provide long films. It is the long film which brings people into the cinema, and which provides the renters' and exhibitors' livelihood. Long films are bound to be shown. That is not the case with short films. There is a danger that if you make the regulations in respect of short films too onerous for the renter and exhibitor, they will give them up. You may, in fact, do an actual disservice to the producer whom you are trying to help. I have given the utmost consideration to these Amendments which

have come down from another place. I do not want to do anything which would seem to be a discouragement to the making of short films. After, I must own, a great deal of time, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, I can recommend that the House should agree with the Lords in these Amendments. I have come to it on two grounds. After all, the consequences of a mistake in connection with short films are not really so great as the consequences of a mistake in connection with long films.
Secondly, I have been influenced by the fact that if this burden is too heavy it can easily be avoided by the renter and exhibitor; and, in fact, they have warned us that in that case they will avoid it, by not showing short films. If a mistake is made, the damage will be incurred not by the renter or exhibitor, as in the case of long films, but the producer—and the producer is asking for this addition; therefore, he cannot complain if the result is not satisfactory to him. I hope that it will be found—especially with the addition to the definition in the Bill, of what can be included in the short film—that an ample supply will be available of decent quality to meet the requirements of the Schedule. In any case, the exhibitors' quota after the first 12 months is subject to review. I think it is only right that I should make this perfectly plain. I shall have to watch the position in the 12 months very carefully, and if I find that the burden we have placed on the renter or exhibitor is too onerous I shall have to make use of the discretion which is given me in the Bill for meeting cases where people are genuinely unable to comply with the legal obligation which is placed upon them.
I hope that this will be a real benefit to the producers of short films in this country, and that they will respond to the assistance given them by thinking of the other people concerned: the renter, the exhibitor, and the public; and realising that, in return for these extra privileges, they have to set themselves to make a quality of film, as well as a quantity, which will ensure that the burden is not oppressive to the renter, the exhibitor and the public. In the circumstances, I think I am justified in asking the House to agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Again, I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman for the reason stated by him, that we have all been more or less sympathetic to the production of short films. Where there has been a real and genuine effort to show our industries, or social life and general characteristics on the films, it has been by the means of short films. The first part of this series of Amendments dealing with the outside limits to which quota can be moved, practically from 20 to 30 per cent., will be dealt with by the Films Council. They will act upon evidence available to them after their experience from time to time, and I do not think the House need worry very much about the outside limits. We must expect that 20 wise men and one very wise woman will know exactly what to do when the time comes to make recommendations to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stanley: Not a statutory woman!

Mr. Williams: In any case, I hope that, from that point of view, hon. Members need not have any fear as to the consequences of the concession of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps making a wise gesture with regard to the increases in the Schedule, but, at the same time, we must all remember that he is also speculating. He is speculating upon a decision which may react ultimately to the detriment of those who are seeking this increase in the Schedule. If I were prepared to take a chance and speculate at all, it would be with the short film. In any case, in Sub-section (4) of Clause 26, the right hon. Gentleman has the power, through the agency of an Order, to deal with either the cost or the view test for short films just as he takes powers in the Bill to deal with long films. That is a safeguard in that direction. Should importers cease to import a large number of short films—that type which is supposed to be given free of charge, like lucky bags—the exporter will not be called upon to show any home-produced short films except those which are sold because of their pure entertainment value. Therefore, while it may be in the nature of some form of speculation, it is well worth while—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wise—to make this gesture to the producers of short documentary films. I hope that they will

respond to that gesture and give more and, if possible, even better documentary films than we have had so far.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: As one who unsuccessfully tried upstairs to do what has now been done in another place, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment, and, if it may be done without impertinence, I should wish also to offer him a word of encouragement. I do not think that the people in an industry are necessarily always the right judges of what can be done, but at any rate they are the people who suffer if they judge wrongly. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that people who are concerned with the production of short films, are perfectly confident that their market will not slip away from them. They are confident that exhibitors will invite them to show more shorts and that there is not the risk, which has been propounded in argument, that, if the quota is made too high, the answer of the exhibitors will be to show no American short films, and, therefore, no short British films. If the producers of "short films are mistaken in that matter, they are the right people to make that mistake, because they are the people who must suffer. I therefore welcome this concession to producers of short films.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I do not know why the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the composition of the Films Council in the way that he did, unless he has some inside knowledge. He might just as well have said that there are going to be on it 20 wise women and one very wise man. I think that it could be constituted in that way if the President of the Board of Trade thought well to do so. I want to join in what other hon. Members have said in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for having come to this conclusion. I am sure that he has taken a wise gamble on this question and I believe that it will work put to the advantage of British films.

5.21 p.m.

Sir W. Wayland: One cannot help but appreciate the way in which the Minister has tried to meet us in the matter of these schedules. In Committee I thought that he was lacking in courage, and I know the position in which he felt himself. If he let the public down they


would blame him entirely. He was not at all certain that the industry would be able to produce a sufficient number of short or long films. Those of us who pressed him to agree to a higher schedule were more courageous, and I am confident that there is a much larger scope for short films than for long films, for a large number of educational and artistic films introduced as short films, which will really fill the bill. Therefore, I am very glad to hear what the President has just stated.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: This has always been a non-party Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) congratulated the Minister upon making a speculation and the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) congratulated him upon taking a gamble. I do not believe either in speculation or gambling; I think that he is making a mistake. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Sir W. Wayland) said that there was no doubt that the industry would be able to produce the necessary number of shorts, but that is not the point. The point is whether there is any compulsion on exhibitors who show no shorts in their programme. It will be perfectly simple, if this appears to be irksome at all, for exhibitors to cut out shorts altogether from the programme, and the last position will be worse than the first. I agree with all that has been said as to the desirability of supporting the people who are anxious to produce highbrow shorts at the cinemas in order to encourage the highbrow in that way, though I am not one myself.

Mr. Stanley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how to tell a highbrow film?

Mr. Morrison: The difficulty seems to be this: If you take the trouble to ask ordinary people who go to the cinema whether they go because of the short that is being shown, you will find that less than half of 1 per cent. go because of the shorts and that the rest go because of the other part of the programme. It is a simple thing for the programme to be adjusted. I have noted recently at cinemas that I frequent, when I get an opportunity of dodging out of this House for an hour or two, that there is a tendency for shorts to be eliminated and

their place to be taken by two news reels.

Sir W. Wayland: Would not the people prefer two good shorts to one bad long one?

Mr. MacLaren: It depends whether it is whisky.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the House when I spoke in the Debate a few minutes ago and said that the public were getting increasingly particular whether they went to the pictures at all, but he will find in the ordinary industrial districts that, if at the first show on Monday night the long picture is a bad one, the house will be practically empty for the rest of the week. People look several times at 6d. before they spend it at the pictures, and you find them asking people who come out at the end of the first house what the picture is like, and if reports are bad they do not go. They go to another cinema, if there is one, but they certainly do not go to that one. I have noticed a tendency recently for the programme to be made up of the first feature and the second feature and two news reels, and, in view of the length of pictures to-day, they make a fairly long programme.
I do not intend to press this matter to a Division, and I do not know whether anyone would support me or not. I take the view that the producers of shorts have gone beyond themselves and asked for too much. I shall not be at all surprised if, within 12 months, the very people who pressed for this are not approaching the President of the Board of Trade to alter it. I do not think that it will be a success. If an irksome restriction is placed upon renters or exhibitors, it can easily be overcome by a minor adjustment in the programme which will not affect the public at all, and then it will not be necessary to observe the short quota at all. I do not agree with the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in taking this gamble or making this speculation. The producers of shorts are asking for something which will not give them what they want.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. E. Evans: I dissociate myself entirely from the point of view expressed by


the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). I accept the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade, as do most hon. Members who have spoken. The right hon. Gentleman, however, offered a word of caution when he said that he would have to watch carefully as to whether the burden of the short films will not put too great an onus upon the industry in the future. That is a proper attitude to take. It would not be right to regard a tendency which is having such a tremendous influence upon the country purely from the industrial and commercial point of view. The short films in this country are exercising a great influence and are a matter of interest to children and of educational value. These are things which the House of Commons ought to bear in mind, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will bear them in mind.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 8, agreed to.

CLAUSE 16—(Reduction of exhibitors' quotas for year ending 30th September, 1938.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 16, leave out the Clause.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I regret very much that on this matter I should have to take a different line from that which has been taken in another place. I cannot help feeling that there are certain considerations with regard to this Amendment which were perhaps not fully present when this decision was come to, and I hope to show hon. Members that it is a decision to which it would really be impossible for the Government to give their assent. Let me explain what the effect of the Lords Amendment would be. The exhibitors' quota year runs from the 1st October in one year to the 30th September in the next. In the year in which we are now the exhibitors' quota year which started on the 1st October last is the last year for the quota as laid down under the Act of 1927. The quota laid down by that

Act was 20 per cent. Failing any Amendment in this Bill that would have been the quota which the exhibitors would have had to fill for the year beginning the 1st October last and ending the 30th September next. The effect of Clause 16 is to reduce the exhibitors' quota of 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. I announced the Government's intention of making that alteration as far back as last summer, in the White Paper then issued setting out the Government's proposals in regard to the film industry.
I will tell the House exactly how it was that I came to the conclusion that such an alteration was desirable. I do not want to say anything which can be taken as discouraging the British production of films or throwing doubts on our capacity to produce good pictures. We have produced good pictures in the past, and I sincerely hope that we shall produce even better ones in the future. At the same time, while one does not want to do anything which makes the task of the British producer more difficult, we simply cannot close our eyes to the events which happened in the cinema world within the last two years, events which the Moyne Committee could not have anticipated. What was the position when that committe was sitting? It was that the film-producing industry were getting their hands on more money than they had ever been able to get their hands on before. They hardly had to go out to ask for it. They were practically stopped in the street and had it thrust upon them. During a year or two millions went from the City of London into the film-producing industry in this country. Those millions went. It is no good our shutting our eyes to the fact that there was extravagance and inefficiency and that there was a bubble which was bound to burst. It did burst, and after it burst it left the natural period of reaction which is bound to come whenever you have an inflated movement of that kind. I had to take those facts into consideration.
It is true that in the year before last the exhibitors' quota had been 20 per cent., and exhibitors had been showing a higher proportion than that, but there were quite a number of individual defaults, even in that period of boom production. I had to face the possibility, which has been very fully borne out, of a reaction from that period of extravagance


and inefficiency which would produce a falling off in production and necessitate a lower exhibitors' quota. That coincided with another factor which, again, the Moyne Committee could not have anticipated. I refer to the date at which it was possible to introduce the Bill. It was not possible to introduce it until just after the exhibitors' quota period had started. The House knows that we had lengthy discussions, numerous Amendments brought forward and all sort of revolutionary plans put forward, almost overnight, from different quarters, dealing with the industry. All these created an uncertainty in the film-producing industry in this country which has held up, and will hold up, the production of films until this Bill is through, and for the first time the producers know exactly where they are.
I came to the conclusion as far back as last summer that the combination of these two factors would make it essential to reduce the exhibitors' quota from the 20 per cent. laid down 10 years ago, when neither of these two factors were present. I thought then and I still think, and everything that has happened has confirmed my view that I was perfectly right in doing that; but I should like hon. Members to put out of their minds for the moment the question whether that original proposal of mine was right or wrong. I want them to think of the actual position as it now is. I set out the change in the quota last August as part of the Government's proposals. It was included in the Bill, which got a Second Reading in November, and no exception was taken to it. Clause 16 passed through Committee without any discussion. The matter was not raised on the Report stage in this House.
Everything has gone to confirm the exhibitor in the belief that he could trust to the figure which has been set out as the figure proposed by the Government, and that that was the figure to which he would have to work. No one can blame him for having worked to that figure. What is the position to-day? Under the Lords Amendment we are suddenly again to make an alteration and to make the quota not 15 but 20 per cent., and that when half the year is already over. Six months have already gone and the exhibitors, trusting to the Government's proposals, have been working on the basis of

15 per cent. So far as the practical use of this proposal is concerned a further six months have gone, because I should say that the vast majority of exhibitors in this country have already booked their programmes for the next six months on the basis of the quota as it appears in the Bill. They have booked their programmes and cannot get out of them.
The effect of accepting the Amendment and of increasing the quota from 15 to 20 per cent. would be most unfortunate. I know that it will be said that it is done to help the producers, by giving them something more. I do not believe that it will help the producers one bit. Six months have gone; we cannot alter that, and for the six months still to go most of the exhibitors are already under contract. The net effect of accepting the Amendment would be, automatically, the day that this Bill becomes law to make a large number of exhibitors in this country certain defaulters, with no possibility of putting themselves right. I cannot think that that really can be rgarded as helpful to the industry. It is true that I could use widespread the powers that I have of exempting people who default, but the widespread use of powers of that kind are extraordinarily unsatisfactory. I do not believe that the producers would gain anything from this change. On the other hand, I feel that we could not have a worse start for the new Act and for what I hope will be a new era of films in this country than by making people who have trusted to the proposals which the Government put forward feel that they have been misled and made to face suddenly the prospects of losses.
It is a matter on which I feel very keenly, because I feel that it is on my word that to a large extent these people have relied. The proposal in the Amendment is, therefore, one that I must resist to the utmost, and I must ask the House to agree with me that it is an Amendment which we cannot accept without creating unfairness to a large number of people.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman has to produce good, sound logical reasons for any disagreement he may have with the House of Lords. For my part, I am prepared to disagree with them on almost every occasion. Therefore, I can readily agree with him without giving any reason for it, except that I always


feel glad to be able to oppose Noble Lords. On this occasion, apart from my personal feelings with regard to the other House, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has given justifiable reasons why we should oppose the Amendment. It is obvious that if, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, programmes have been filled up covering the next six months, we should simply be legislating thousands of people into default, through causes over which they have little or no control.
I went to the other place to listen to a debate there and I was horrified to hear a Noble Lord, an ex-Minister of State, suggest that we ought to delete Clause 16, with all its implications, and immediately take steps to amplify Clause 13, if need be, so that all those who were obliged to default against the law might be excused when the law had been broken. I cannot think that any hon. Member in this House, certainly no legal Member, would contemplate such a proposition for a single moment. Instead of relieving them from a liability which they could not carry out, the only safe thing for any Minister to do was to ascertain as closely as he could the possible quota which might be observed and to take such powers as is already in the old Act and in this Bill so that when through no fault of their own they could not fulfil the quota they could be relieved, as is the case under Clause 13. If Clause 16 were deleted there would be many defaults. There have been 430-odd defaults in the last three years, 200 defaults last year, when 220 films were made, and the estimate for the next 12 months is approximately only 50. In such circumstances, the Films Council would be spending nine-tenths of its time doing nothing but considering applications for relief from liabilities.
I do not understand the mentality of those in another place who moved the deletion of Clause 16 and only slightly amended the Second Schedule. When the Bill passed its Second Reading and went to Committee the exhibitors' quota for the first year was 10 per cent. We must assume that the Board of Trade officials had ascertained what films were likely to be produced and the quota which the exhibitors could fairly and squarely fulfil, and their decision was 10 per cent. In Committee, after pressure, the right hon. Gentleman increased the exhibitors' quota in the first year from 10 to 12½ per cent.

The Noble Lords who moved the deletion of Clause 16, thereby making the exhibitors' quota 20 instead of 15 per cent., amended only the second part of the exhibitors' quota in the Schedule for the first operative year from 12½ to 15 per cent.
Even they have no confidence that films will be available to fill a quota beyond 15 per cent. for the year ending September this year. How they expect during the next six months for a 20 per cent. quota to be filled when the best they hope will be filled is 15 per cent., I do not understand. It would be a ludicrous situation if with our eyes open we legislate people into default and then have to employ 21 persons almost full time investigating whether default has taken place or not. I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in resisting the Amendment. Unless Clause 16 is reinstated the new Act will not start in a good environment. One large portion of the industry will be hostile, and that will be very bad indeed. I hope hon. Members who have listened to the President's statement will see the wisdom of not trying to do the impossible. It is far better to face the fact that 15 per cent. is a possibility though not a certainly, while a 20 per cent. quota is out of the question.

547 p.m.

Captain A. Evans: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his concluding remarks drew attention to the fact that a defence of the Lords Amendment had been prepared, and suggested that it would be pressed to its logical conclusion. I think my right hon. Friend did himself an injustice in under-estimating the persuasive power of his eloquence. I did my best to present the case in favour of the proposals then on the Paper in the name of other hon. Members and myself on Report stage, but the President has undoubtedly made out a case for certain practical difficulties, and from a practical point of view I do not see how it is possible to overcome them. If we accept the Motion and reject the Lords Amendment it only means that we are postponing a 20 per cent. quota for six months, and in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I for my part do not propose to press my point of view.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Day: I am glad of the stand taken by the President of the Board of Trade on this Amendment. There can be no doubt that it was passed in another place by Noble Lords who are not quite acquainted with the situation of the film trade. The President of the Board of Trade has made a masterly study of it during the time the Bill has been before the House, and the Parliamentary Secretary also seems to have the whole situation at his finger-tips. For further corrobation of the right hon. Gentleman's contention we have only to look at the experience of the last Act. The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said there had been 426 exhibitor defaulters, but according to the Board of Trade returns there were 484 during the three years ended 1936. That is not the end of the story. The hon. and gallant Member for South Padding-ton (Vice-Admiral Taylor) said there were redundant exhibitors, but I would remind him that there are also redundant renters, because 17 renters failed to comply with their quota.
No doubt all exhibitors would be only too pleased to show first-class British films in all their programmes, provided they could rely on being able to obtain them. The difficulty of the majority of British exhibitors is that they have been unable to get these first-class attractions. If they could get films which would do ordinary business there would not be a call for foreign films. If the Amendment was agreed to by this House we should be making a lot of defaulters, because there is no doubt the trade cannot possibly get 20 per cent. of good British films to satisfy their audiences. You cannot make an audience patronise a bad film; you cannot make a person spend his money in buying something which is no good, and if you are going to try and force the British public to take a 20 per cent. quota of British films you will be doing more harm to the industry than it is possible to imagine. Why make exhibitors break the law for the purpose of excusing them? All you are doing is to set them a task which it is impossible for them to carry out. If we accept the Amendment we are only saying; "We are giving you a quota which we know you cannot get, but if you do not get it come to us and ask us to forgive you." I hope the House will

unanimously support the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the Amendment.

543 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think the President of the Board of Trade has made out a strong case for resisting the Amendment, although one comes to that conclusion with some reluctance. While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, I do not altogether feel that some of the arguments he used were sound. He laid down the doctrine that because the Government in July or August of last year said they were going to put in a 15 per cent. quota it must be assumed that it would be a 15 per cent. quota, quite overlooking the fact that there is a House of Commons and another place which might make substantial alterations to the figure. Furthermore, he made an implied attack on another place which I thought was rather surprising. He practically said to them that as this proposed went through the House of Commons and aroused no opposition, the idea that any serious alteration would be made in another place could not be seriously considered for a moment. That is the argument which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. I say that as long as we have a second Chamber of the kind we have it must be treated with more seriousness than the President seemed to suggest. On the whole I think he was right.

5.55 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I rise to support the Lords Amendment and I regret having once again to disagree with the President of the Board of Trade. In his peroration he based his case on the fact that he had given a personal guarantee to a body of persons known as film exhibitors. As a matter of fact, the Lords Amendment merely continues the existence until it is properly terminated of certain Sections in the existing Act. The reasons to which we have listened this afternoon for disagreeing with the Lords Amendment are almost precisely the same reasons as have been adduced by the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association—reasons with which we have all been circulated to-day or quite recently. I do not think they are reasons which can be satisfactorily sustained. The exhibitors tell us that they object to the Amendment because they say that since the White Paper was issued in July or August last year they decided to go on the assumption that


from the passing of the Bill the exhibitors' quota would be reduced from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent.; they tell us that they proceeded on the assumption that the proposal in the White Paper would become law. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). What right have the exhibitors, or any other body of people in this country, to take action op such an assumption?
They also argue that because no attempt was made in the House during the passage of the Bill to strike out Clause 16 they were even more justified in basing their plans on the reduced quota. As a matter of fact, there was an Amendment on the Order Paper during the Committee stage to delete Clause 16. I know it was not moved, but that was owing to an oversight on the part of those who put their names to it—I agree a regrettable oversight. I should like to ask again: since when have the exhibitors or any other body of persons had the right to assume that a Bill presented to the House is going to pass in precisely the form in which it was introduced; or any right to assume that a Bill when it has been passed by this House cannot be amended in another place? It has been stated categorically that if this Amendment was accepted there would be a shortage of films and a very large number of defaulters; that we are therefore imposing legislation which will create defaulters. We heard the same argument in Committee. If that was really the case I should not support the Amendment for one moment, but no facts or figures have been produced to me to show that the Amendment would mean an increase in the number of defaulters. On the contrary, the facts seem to justify an opinion in the opposite direction.
The figures are now available up to the 15th March, showing the registration of films for this year, and I should like to know whether they are correct. The total number of long films registered this renters' quota year, up to 15th March, was 752, and of that number 197, or approximately 27 per cent., were British films. Considering those figures, I am not satisfied that there is a shortage, and I suggest that a quota of 26 per cent. would be justified, as it would give the exhibitors precisely the same margin of choice in the case of British films as they have in the case of foreign films. It also

appears—and I have heard no evidence to the contrary—that the total number of British films registered this year is very nearly at the same level as in the preceding year. My right hon. Friend, for reasons which he has given, wishes to make a concession to the cinema exhibitors. I suggest that in any case the concession of a reduction to 15 per cent. is manifestly far too great.
When one considers the facts which I have given, I think it will be seen that that concession is very significant. As the Minister pointed out, the Government's White Paper was issued only at the end of July or in August, and it was only then that any indication was given to the exhibitors that the Government even contemplated a reduction during these last six months of the quota year from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. Therefore, it may be assumed that, since the exhibitors make their bookings six months ahead, when they received that indication they had already booked ahead to January or February of this year. One may assume that they had booked the full 20 per cent. of British films, in accordance with their Statutory obligations. It now seems that, since the quota is to be only 15 per cent. for the year ending September next and since they have fulfilled the 20 per cent. quota for the last six months, they will require to fulfil a quota of only 10 per cent. for the remaining months of the year. That is the significance of the concession that is being made. It seems to me that if the exhibitors acted so promptly on the basis of a mere indication of the Government's contemplation of a reduction of the quota, that is the best argument for a good stiff protective measure. On the first occasion on which they could avail themselves of the reduction in the number of British pictures which they must show, they seized the opportunity without undue delay for increasing their foreign bookings. For those reasons I support the Amendment.
Opposition to the Amendment has largely been on the ground that there will be a shortage of the type of pictures which the exhibitor must have. Such figures as I have do not prove that. Rather do they show that there will not be such a shortage, and I hope that before the discussion of this matter is concluded, the Government will say what is their interpretation of the figures I have given, and whether they are


correct or incorrect. If those figures are correct, I feel that Clause 16 is a breach of faith with the renters, who have already acquired their supply, and a breach of faith with the producers who, having made their pictures, will no longer find the same percentage of guaranteed market as has hitherto existed. Unless my figures and conclusions are entirely wrong, I suggest that this will be a very bad start for the Bill, when it becomes an Act.

6.6 p.m.

Sir W. Wayland: I came to the House with the determination to support my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) in supporting the Lords Amendment; but for the first time since I have been in the House, I have been converted by a Minister. After the speech of my right hon. Friend, I feel that I cannot support the Lords Amendment. Although I do not agree with all the Minister's remarks about the quotas, the argument which struck me as being most forcible, practical and convincing was his reference to the fact that six months out of the 12 months of the film year have passed. Therefore, in those circumstances I support my right hon. Friend in opposing the Lords Amendment.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I find myself in a difficulty in which few other hon. Members find themselves. I was born in a country where the people are always against the Government, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), I am always against the House of Lords. In this case, I have to choose between two evils, and I prefer the Government to the House of Lords. There is an old saying that if one has to choose between two evils, one should choose neither, but in this case I feel that I must choose one. In supporting the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in opposing the Lords Amendment, I am influenced by my own reasoning. I have no interests in the film industry, although I have friends in that industry, as in many other industries. I was, however, influenced by the Minister's speech, and by the fact that independent cinematograph exhibitors have told me that they have endeavoured to book British films, but that, in spite

of making every reasonable effort, they have found it impossible to do so in some cases.
If that be so—and I believe it is in some instances, at any rate—what will happen if the Lords Amendment is accepted? A number of exhibitors will not be able to fulfil the quota requirements and will be compelled to ask for exemptions, and the Bill, as an Act, will be a perfect farce. It will give encouragement to people to break the law, and the Minister will be given a power which he ought not to have, namely, the power to grant exemptions on a very large scale. I do not think it was ever intended that any power of exemption given to a Minister should be exercised save in exceptional circumstances, but in this case, everybody might be exempted. I do not think that is a situation which the House ought to create. The exhibitors have to make their contracts in advance, and in making those contracts they have very little to guide them.
If I were an exhibitor, and had been compelled to make bookings ahead, on what ground would I have made those bookings? I should have known that the Bill was introduced, that it was given a Second Reading with the 15 per cent. quota in it, that it went to the Standing Committee, and that an Amendment on the Paper to delete Clause 16 was not, in fact, moved, either because the hon. Members who had put it on the Paper had realised that it would be unwise to move it, or because they had been converted to another point of view. I should then have asked myself whether I would book ahead on the basis of a 15 per cent. quota or a 20 per cent. quota. In view of the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for me to expect that the Bill would be passed with a 15 per cent. quota. I do not think anybody would have been justified in concluding that when the Bill went to another place, particularly in view of the fact that the Government, as well as hon. Members of the Opposition, had agreed to the 15 per cent., a different percentage would be inserted. For those reasons, it seems to me that it is reasonable now to leave the figure at 15 per cent. and, therefore, I am compelled to support the Government on this occasion.

6.14 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I support everything which my hon. Friend the Member


for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) has said concerning the Lords Amendment. Reference has been made to the fact that on the Committee stage an Amendment was not moved to delete Clause 16. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge has explained that that was due to an oversight. It was a bad mistake, and I think it only shows what an estimable institution the other place is in seeing that anything which may have been left out of a Bill by mistake is brought to the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) said that one cannot make an audience patronise a bad British film. As a matter of fact, audiences have bad British films, in the form of British quickies, forced upon them in many cases by the renter, owing to the block booking system. The exhibitor is forced by the renter to accept films which of his own choice he would never show and which he does not desire to show, and unfortunately no legislation can stop that practice. It is incorrect of the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) to say that you cannot make audiences patronise bad British films. Unfortunately, bad films are forced on the British public by the renter, as a result of block booking. In other cases, there are exhibitors who have been prepared in the past to accept bad British films, in the form of quickies, because those films were so cheap. They were almost given away. In those cases the British public are having. forced upon them by the exhibitors something which the exhibitors know quite well the public do not wish to see.
It is true that there have been many cases of default, but it is also the fact that many cases of default have been due to the redundancy of cinemas in certain districts. Exhibitors know quite well that in many districts there are too many cinemas competing one against the other. It is impossible for all those cinemas to get the films which they desire, and that is a great reason for default. The President of the Board of Trade has not mentioned that circumstance at all. No allusion has been made to it, but it is the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge has given figures showing that there is a sufficiency of films at the present time to enable the exhibitor to fulfil his quota obligation of 20 per cent. Also the producer has at his disposal the studios,

the actors, the cameramen, the technicians, and everything that is required to produce in this country any number of films which is required, and more than a sufficient number to fulfil a 20 per cent. quota. I do not understand why the President of the Board of Trade should say that there are not sufficient films at the present time and I hope he will be able to deal with the figures which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge. Everyone is desirous of getting rid of the quota quickies as soon as possible. They ought never to have been produced and they were only produced because the American renter got round the Act. The quickies that have been made will be available under this Bill, I think, for two years, or rather longer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member now seems to be getting a very long way from the Amendment which is before the House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: These quota quickies constitute one type of film with which it will be possible to fulfil this 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. quota. Am I not therefore permitted to speak about that type of film?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking about what may happen in the next two years. That cannot possibly be affected by this Amendment.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I submit that this is a consideration which arises in connection with the 15 per cent. or the 20 per cent.—the 20 per cent. under the present Act or the 15 per cent. under this Bill. These exhibitors are prepared at present to exhibit quota quickies as part of their programmes. Equally, they will be prepared to do so when this Bill becomes an Act. It would be very much better if we maintained the 20 per cent. instead of reducing it to 15 per cent., in order that these quota quickies should be got rid of as soon as possible.

Mr. Goldie: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly tell me what is a quickie? He will excuse my ignorance.

Mr. Denville: There is no excuse.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not know whether the hon. Member is serious or not.

Mr. Goldie: I am serious.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The quota quickie is a type of very poor, indifferent film which was introduced by the American renter in order to comply with the law under the 1927 Act. It is a short film and a bad film which the public do not wish to see and which is given to exhibitors for practically nothing.

Mr. Goldie: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member. Now I know.

Mr. Denville: May I add—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be better to keep to the Amendment which is before the House.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I apologise for having been led away by the hon. Member on the question of the quota quickies, but I beg the President of the Board of Trade in the interests of the British film industry as a whole to consider the producer. He has considered the exhibitor and has, I think, adopted a very dangerous principle in quoting the White Paper and saying that the exhibitors assumed that it would become law. He has done that on behalf of the exhibitors, but he seems to have forgotten the producers. We shall never have an efficient film industry in this country unless we consider the producer a great deal more than he has been considered in this Bill.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I can only speak again by leave of the House, and I intervene again mainly because of what was said by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) who is not now in his place. That, however, is only tit for tat, because I was out of the House when he made his speech, but the matter to which he referred has also been mentioned by other speakers. I am not saying that because the Government stated in July their intention to introduce a Bill which would contain a particular provision, that was a pledge which was binding on this House or on another place and could not be altered. All I do say is that it is obviously binding on the person who gave that pledge to do his best to carry it out. Secondly, I would say that, human nature being what it is, and the Government having given that pledge, when that particular detail passes unchallenged, in stage after stage of the

proceedings on this Bill, it is not unnatural that ordinary persons should act on the assumption that a certain thing was going to happen. We are told about what a terrible thing it is that exhibitors should act on this assumption, but I should not be surprised to find that the producers have been acting for the last six months on the assumption that a Bill would go through which would give them a quota—in spite of the fact that things might happen in another place, or between this House and another place, which might prevent that becoming a fact. Yet I do not suppose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks it wrong that they should have been acting up to now on the assumption that there would, in fact, be such a provision as I have indicated.
I rise only to defend myself against the charge—I am sure not seriously made—of having acted unconstitutionally and of having done something to tie the hands of this House or of another place. I think all who heard my speech will agree that that was not the purport of it. In fact, the sequence of events was such that the people to whom I refer naturally acted in the way they did. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Sir A. Baillie) are beside the point of my argument. My argument is that for the next six months of the present quota year most exhibitors are already booked up and therefore it does not matter how many British films are readily available. I would however tell him this. It is a thing which I did not particularly want to say, but as he has challenged me I will say it. It is our information that a large proportion of these British films which have been registered in the last year are of poor quality. They obtained very low markings and indeed, we have had, during this year, about the worst type of quota quickie that we have had at any time in the history of the industry. I, for one, am not going to be a party as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested to forcing those down the throats of the exhibitors, because I believe that even from the short-sighted point of view of getting more money to the producer, it is wrong.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I do not want to force quota quickies down anybody's throat, but if the British public have to see these quickies, I prefer that they should see them during the next six


months and never see them again. Under this Bill they can be carried on for two years. I want to cut down the time. My right hon. Friend wants to extend it.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal definitely was that we should put the percentage up to 20 per cent. so that in the next six months we should make the exhibitors take these quickies. I say that, judged on their merits, and giving the exhibitor, as I believe I do under this Bill, a fair choice, the quickies will never see the light of day and they ought not to see it. But I am not going to be a party to forcing them down the exhibitors' throats. There is no surer way of keeping people out of the cinemas and thus closing the cinemas and, therefore, closing the market for those producers for whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks.

CLAUSE 17.—(Restriction on blind booking.)

CLAUSE 24.—(Applications for registration, and information to be furnished in connection therewith.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 13, after "made," insert "either."

6.28 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the two following Amendments are designed to give effect to the original intention of the Clause, namely, that either the maker or the renter who acquires a film for distribution in Great Britain could register it, as at present provided under the Act of 1927. As the Clause is drafted, without these Amendments, the maker would not have the right to register it at all if the right of distribution in this country had already been acquired by a renter. It often happens that United Kingdom distribution rights are acquired by a renter before the film is actually made and if, in those circumstances, the renter was the only person who could register it, the maker would have no control over it for quota purpose and might therefore be unable to

dispose of the "reciprocity rights." The Amendments carry out what, I am sure, was the intention of the House.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 22, line 15, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25.—(Determination of films to be treated as British films for purposes of registration.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 20, leave out "is," and insert "was."

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment. The real point here is not that the studio used in making a film is within His Majesty's Dominion at the time the film is registered, but that the studio should have been within His Majesty's Dominion at the time when the film was made. It is, therefore, proposed to substitute "was" for "is."

CLAUSE 26.—(Conditions governing registration of British films as quota films.)

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 40, leave out "is," and insert:
(exclusive of any portion of the film which, by virtue of Sub-section (3) of the last preceding Section, is to be treated as not forming part of the film) was.

6.32 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is really a drafting Amendment designed to preserve the right of the producer under Clause 25 (3) to include in his films a small proportion of foreign film. The House will remember that it was agreed in Committee that, provided the foreign film did not exceed 10 per cent. in all, or 20 per cent. of the studio scenes, and was not counted in the length of the film, this would be a good idea. This Amendment is simply designed to preserve this right.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 27, line 27, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 27, leave out lines 28 to 34, and insert:


(7) If, and to the extent that, Section one of this Act has effect subject to the modification made therein by an order containing such a direction as is authorised by paragraph (a) of Sub-section (3) of that Section, Sub-section (6) of this Section shall have effect as if in that Sub-section for the words 'trebled for the purpose of renters 'quota' there were substituted the words 'capable of being doubled under Section three of this Act.'

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The first point, that of leaving out lines 28 to 34, is really a drafting Amendment. On further consideration of this proviso which we are now proposing to delete it was found that it is not necessary. The requirements contained in it are as to what should or should not be entered on the register, and we feel that that is a much more suitable thing to be dealt with administratively than in the Bill. Therefore my right hon. Friend thinks that the omission of this proviso would be advisable. As regards the new Sub-section (7) which it is proposed to insert in this place, it is put in to safeguard the position that if the concessions on treble quota films embodied in Clause 1 are withdrawn, as they may be following a recommendation of the Films Council, the position of such films under Clause 3, that is, for the purpose of reciprocity abroad, will not be prejudiced.

CLAUSE 34.—(Films to which Act applies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 24, leave out from "news," to "or," in line 26.

6.34 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a result of further consultation with the makers of news reels as to the best definition of "news reels" for insertion in the Bill. By limiting the definition in the way now proposed Clause 34 would exclude from the scope of the Act films which are simply and solely news films within the commonly accepted meaning of the term, and would allow everything else to come in.

CLAUSE 39.—(Regulations of Board of Trade.)

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 20, after "films," insert:
or for licences under this Act.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This would enable the Board of Trade to prescribe by regulations the form in which the exhibitors' licences shall be applied for.

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 22, at the end, insert:
or is a film which ought to be registered under Part III of this Act as a renters' quota film.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 26 provides, in its second Subsection, that a British film, in order to qualify for registration as a renters' quota film, must satisfy certain additional conditions, and this Amendment is to enable the Board to make regulations prescribing the evidence which they will require in order to establish the right of a British film to registration as a renters' quota film.

CLAUSE 40.—(The Cinematograph Films Council.)

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 8, leave out from "persons" to the end of line n, and insert:
appointed as being independent persons.

6.36 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment should be considered with the Amendment at the bottom of the same page, to insert a new Sub-section (2), as follows:
(2) It shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to satisfy themselves, with respect to any person whom they propose to appoint under paragraph (a) of the preceding Subsection to be a member of the said Council or who is a member of the Council by virtue of an appointment made under that paragraph, that he will have or has, as the case may be, no such financial or commercial interest as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a member of the Council; and any such person shall, whenever requested by the Board so to do, furnish


to them such information as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this Sub-section.
They are the outcome of a suggestion made in another place by Lord Moyne, in which he said that he thought that under the Bill as drafted the discretion of the Board of Trade as to whom they should appoint on the new Films Council was rather too limited. Lord Moyne, who has, of course, a particular title to speak on this subject, thought the Board should have wider discretion in appointing independent members and should not be debarred from appointing any particular person simply because he had had at some time a small interest in a financial way in the film industry. I hope and believe that the House will agree that that fact need not necessarily disqualify anybody, and the Amendment provides that the Board of Trade must satisfy themselves that either anybody who is to be appointed or anybody who has been appointed has no financial or commercial interest in the industry of a kind
likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions.

To enlarge the Clause in that way would give my right hon. Friend a somewhat wider choice of persons, and as we are all most anxious to get the best possible independent members on the Films Council, I hope that this House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: While I am in agreement with the principle of the Amendment, I should like to know what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind in saying "a small interest." If this Amendment is to exclude any interest whatever, small or large, I am quite in agreement with it, but if we are to have a qualification that the interest shall only be a small one, it is as well that the House should have a clearer definition of what that small interest may be. Another point on this Amendment is whether when the appointment is made the person may have an interest in the film industry of which on appointment he will be able to divest himself, the same as I believe prevails in one or two other Acts of Parliament, such as the Sugar Act, where we set up a commission of this nature. As I say, I am in entire agreement with the principle of the Amendment, but I think somebody ought

to say what that interest is, whether any interest whatever, small or large, is excluded, and whether the person to be appointed can divest himself immediately on appointment, or whether he must not have had any interest whatever.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: I think the other place has been wise to insert this Amendment, because I do not think it would be useful to tie the hands of the President of the Board of Trade too closely in this matter. What the House really wants is that after the trade representatives have been appointed, the ordinary panel of the public should not be used as a back door for further trade representatives getting on the Council. Anyone who has a few shares in the industry should not necessarily be debarred. Therefore I am in favour of wider elasticity being given to the President of the Board of Trade.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help feeling that there may be a certain amount of danger in this Amendment, because later on we might get a system growing up whereby it might be said that a particular individual noted for his broadmindedness had a considerable number of shares and quite a considerable holding in the industry, and yet the Board of Trade might say, "We think that under this Clause it would be right to put him on the Council, because we can trust him to disregard altogether his personal interest." I think it would not be desirable that anybody should be put on who has any substantial holding in the industry at all. Perhaps we shall hear whether it is contemplated that anything of that kind should be done.

6.42 p.m.

Captain Wallace: If I may, with the leave of the House, speak again on this Amendment, I will say that the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) has really answered the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The answer is contained in the second Amendment to which I referred, namely, the new Sub-section (2):
… no such financial or commercial interest as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a member of the Council.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for North Tottenham that it is desirable that we should have the widest possible


choice. In regard to what the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said I cannot imagine that either my right hon. Friend or any President of the Board of Trade would fail to be guided by exactly the same considerations as those by which he himself would be guided. We want to get the best people we can, and we do not want to be tied down to having to rule out some particularly good man, with exactly the broad point of view that we require, simply because he happens to have a few shares in some film business. I hope the House will leave the President of the Board of Trade the widest discretion in this matter.

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 13, after "of," insert "British."

6.44 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Amendment on the Paper were moved in another place apparently with the intention of effecting a limitation of the representatives on the Films Council to persons representing purely British interests engaged in the making of films as opposed to foreign interests engaged in film production, but I think that those Members of the House who have followed the intricacies of this Bill will realise on reflection that the Amendment will not carry out that intention. The first of the two Amendments states that two representatives should be appointed as representing the makers of British films. Of course British films can be, and indeed are, made by companies under foreign control. One of the objects of the original legislation was to induce American companies make films in this country. They have to comply with certain formalities, and then their films become British. Furthermore, a British film can be made in any part of the British Empire.
The second of the two Amendments, in line 19, seeks to give representation to persons employed by makers of British films. British films, of course, can be made by foreign controlled companies working in pursuance of their statutory duty under this Bill, and representatives

of persons employed by such makers are included in the Trade Unions with those employed by purely British companies, and could not be separately defined. But the Amendments were accepted in another place by the representatives of the Government in a spirit, I think, of appreciation and of encouragement for British films, and for that reason we may as well let them remain.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not want to disagree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but this is merely inserting a couple of words that mean nothing at all. They just satisfy a patriotic sentiment and nothing more. One might expect this kind of Amendment from another place, and while I do not disagree with them, since they mean nothing, I would point out that they mean more printing and more paper, and perhaps a waste of national finance.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 35, line 19, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 23, at the end, insert:
The Board of Trade shall not appoint to be a member of the said Council any person who has been convicted of an offence under the Act of 1927 or this Act.

6.47 p.m.

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment was moved in a rather different form in another place and was accepted by the Government in the modified form now set out

6.48 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: When the prosecution takes place of a cinema which is part of a circuit or company, is the individual or the company prosecuted, and which individual, if any, will be debarred from becoming a member of the Council if this Amendment is agreed to? I think the spirit of the Amendment is good and should be supported, but we ought to know which person would be debarred in the event of a prosecution. In the case of a small independent cinema the proprietor would be prosecuted, but what would be the position in the case of a


large company. Would all the directors of the company be debarred?

Mr. Mander: May I ask whether individuals who are now members of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee and have been convicted will be ineligible for the Films Council?

6.49 p.m.

Captain Wallace: The answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) is to be found in Clause 38, which says:
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this Act, and it is proved that the offence occurred with the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
If any particular person were convicted, he would be ineligible to be on the Council, and if he were already on the Council his seat would become vacant.

Mr. Mander: May I ask for an answer to my question?

Captain Wallace: I do not know that any member of the Advisory Committee has been convicted.

Mr. Mander: Would Mr. John Maxwell be eligible?

CLAUSE 41.—(Institution of proceedings and service of notices.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 28, leave out "notice or other document," and insert "process."

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is purely drafting. No notice or other document except the process, that is, the summons, is required to be served in connection with proceedings under this Bill.

CLAUSE 43.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 25, leave out from "means" to "beginning," in line 26, and insert "the year."

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose of this and the next two Amendments is to shorten the definition of the renters' quota period.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 38, line 28, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 41, leave out "three" and insert "four."

Captain Wallace: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This and the next Amendment to line 42 can be considered together. They were moved in connection with the concession promised in Committee and made on Report as a result of representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in connection with the trade show of a film which started off by having a charity performance. We thought that the point had been met on Report, but we have since discovered that if the producers of a film elected to have their charity performance on a Friday, which, in spite of the fact that it is an unlucky day, is a day when they can get the attendance of Members of this House, the difficulty would arise that the trade show under the Bill as it stood would have to be held on either the Saturday or the Sunday in order to keep within the three days. There are difficulties in getting exhibitors to come up on Saturday or Sunday, and they will be got over by allowing four days. The second Amendment is designed to secure that the exhibitors get seven days' notice of when a show is to be held.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 40, line 17, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Lords Amendment: In page 43, line 7, column 1, leave out "15," and insert "20."

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss this series of Amendments which deal


with renters' quotas for long films together with the Amendments which deal with exhibitors' quotas for long films. In another place the Amendments on the exhibitors' quotas were considered to be consequential on the Amendments to the renters' quotas. A good deal of the argument will be applicable to both, and it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss them together and, if necessary, to take the decision on them separately.

Mr. T. Williams: While we are dealing with renters' quotas we ought to deal with the exhibitors' quotas as well. One debate will cover the two.

Mr. Speaker: I think that will be agreeable, with the consent of the House.

Mr. Stanley: This question was debated at considerable length at various stages in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons. I do not deny that it is a difficult and debatable matter, but I have on various occasions told the House why I have come to a decision as to the fixing of the renters' quota for the first year at 15 per cent. Despite the arguments and the Amendments in another place, I still remain of the opinion that the figure I then chose was right, and I still believe that, especially at this very late moment—a moment which, after all, is only three days before the renters' quota begins—an increase from that figure to 20 per cent. would have disastrous consequences. It might be as well to explain—and I am induced to do this by an examination of the Debate in another place—although hon. Members who have followed the Bill closely will need no explanation, what is meant by the renters' quota, because only by knowing what it is can we see exactly what burden is borne by the renter.
Take the case of a quota, as it was in the Bill when it left the House, of 15 per cent. That does not mean, as some people appear to think, that a renter who wants to acquire 100,000 feet of foreign films has to provide only 15,000 feet of British films. The percentage is not a percentage on the foreign films that may be acquired, but on all the films that he acquires. Therefore, if a renter acquires 100,000 feet of foreign films he has to acquire 15,000 feet of British films against that, and then, like a sort of compound

of interest, acquire further British films against that addition. To allow a renter to acquire 100,000 feet of foreign films, therefore, he would need to take 18,000 feet of British films. Similarly in other proportions, if the renter's quota was 20 per cent., he would need not 20,000, but about 25,000 feet of British films. It is only right that that should be made plain because it is obvious that there are certain people who have not grasped it and who do not, therefore, understand the extent of the contribution that the renter has to make. This question was considered by the committee sitting under Lord Moyne, which gave most valuable service, but which, we must remember, reported in 1936, and therefore sat through circumstances which were not always the same as those with which we have to deal to-day. They recommended that the initial quota for the renter should be 20 per cent., and I accepted that for subsequent years. The percentage in the second year of the renters' quota is the percentage which was laid down by Lord Moyne. But in the first year I did reduce the renters' quota from the 20 per cent. recommended to 15 per cent. I should like to tell the House exactly what were the reasons why I made that alteration.
The Moyne Committee recommended a viewing test. For reasons which I have several times explained to the House I could not accept that, and we have now in the Bill a cost test, which means an expenditure of at least £7,500 in labour costs; that is, probably about £15,000 in all expended on the film. For a great many American renters that represents a complete reversal of everything they have been doing for the last 10 years. It is just as if a factory which had been making the very cheapest class of goods suddenly turned over to making the most expensive type, and everybody would expect that during that change-over there would be some slowing down in production until the change-over was complete, until the readjustment and reorganisation had been made, and until they had settled down in the new conditions. What were the conditions? The conditions were that there was no cost test at all. Films could be made for the smallest sum possible without any real regard to their merits, or to the possibilities of their getting the money back.
All that, I believe, has been abolished by the new test we propose. It has, I


believe, set for the renter a new standard of production, and a new standard of cost means for him a new standard of care and a new standard of organisation. Another thing, it means that some of his old sources of supply are no good to him any longer. Every one of us who has taken an interest in this business knows one or two producers in this country who have been turning out quota quickies at £1,000 apiece, or whatever it may be. The renter was always able to go to them and order a gross or a thousand—as many as he wanted. That sort of source of supply is no good to him any longer when he has to make this more expensive type of film. I felt that this complete reversal of the demands which were laid upon the renter did mean that during the first year of the existence of these new requirements he was entitled to a temporary reduction of the quota which he had to meet, to enable him to settle down to the new conditions.
And do not let anybody underrate the burdens which are put upon the renter by the new conditions. It is, after all, a very considerable thing if you have to spend a minimum of £15,000 on your quota film in future. I heard the other day of a quota film being picked up for something under £300. This therefore means a very much increased burden. It is significant that the Amendments made in the Lords do not extend beyond the first year. I could have understood it if they had said "The whole of your renters' quota is too low." I should not have agreed to it, but I should have understood it. But they leave the second year, just as I do, at 20 per cent. All that they do is to disagree with me when I say that in these new circumstances, under the revolution that has been taking place in the film industry, the quota in the first year should be lower than it is to be in the second. We have to remember that when we are talking about this renters' quota we are talking about the renters' quota for the coming year, and that year starts in three days, and the Bill is not yet through. It is only within the last few minutes that we have agreed with the Lords over the treble quota. It is only in the last few minutes that we have agreed with them on the alterations in reciprocity. What real possibility has there been for the renter in these months, with all these alterations being made, all these uncertainties, to plan the way he

is going to meet even his existing 15 per cent. quota, if he is going to meet them in the way I hope he is going to? The uncertainty has been created by the fact that during the course of the Bill there has been a large number of Amendments and suggestions made which were not in the White Paper, some of which have only finally been brought forward tonight.
I make no secret of the fact that I hope that the renters' quota is going to mean the production of a more expensive type of film, the films suitable for the world market, and I want to see the renter planning his production, or his purchases, on that basis. If you are going to produce that kind of film you cannot do it at the last moment. I am sure even those hon. Gentlemen who speak for the producers will agree with me that a film which is intended for the world market is not a thing that you can turn out in a few weeks, or even a few months. It means a lot of very careful preparation beforehand. It means first of all a good story, it means the preparation of a number of these films over the course of a year, it means very careful organisation and planning of your studio work, and of the use of your staff. If at the very last moment you raise that quota from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. nominal—or, as I have shown to the House, from 18 per cent. to 25 per cent. in practice—I believe that there is only one possible way in which the law can be carried out and that quota can be filled, and that is simply by making a new type of quota quickie. It will simply mean that the renter, in addition to a carefully planned programme of decent films, worthwhile films of the sort that I want to see under the new Bill, will have to add a certain number of hastily made films which will be just the old quota quickies again, although of course they will cost more money. I do not believe that this addition to the renters' quota at the very last moment can be filled in any other way. I myself should regard that as the most disastrous thing.
I am not a prophet, I have not got second sight, but I nevertheless have a good idea of the speeches that will be made by hon. Gentleman who are going to oppose me on this question. I do not bet, but if I were betting I should be prepared to gamble quite a large sum on the fact that first of all they are going


to say that this extra 5 per cent. can quite easily be met. And then they are going to prove it to the House, and to prove it in this way. They are going to reel out to hon. Gentlemen who have had no previous warning a long list of names, which will mean nothing to hon. Gentlemen, of films which have already been finished and which are waiting for registration and which will all be there ready for the renter if he wants to meet this additional quota.

Mr. Bellenger: You said you were not a prophet.

Mr. Stanley: You will see whether I am or not. Anyhow, I am afraid I am going to be without honour in my own country. But I do warn hon. Members against that argument, because it is not enough just to read out the names of a number of films which have been made and are ready for the renter, unless we know who made them and to whom they belong. Because hon. Members will realise that if those films have been acquired by certain large firms of British renters—as I believe in so many of the cases which they will read out they have—those are not available for anyone else. There are several British renters who habitually rent quite a small number of foreign films, and habitually have a large number of British films surplus to their renters' quota, but they do not give them away to other people. They have bought them because they are going to make money out of them themselves; and to say to the American renter "My dear fellow, it is quite all right for you, because the British renter round the corner has got a couple of extra films," is not of very much comfort unless he can get hold of those films. And he cannot do it, because particular renters have acquired the films for their own purposes. It is not even certain that in any of those cases they will be able to fulfil their quota by getting hold of the foreign rights of those films. I should be prepared again to have a little gamble that among the list of films whose names are going to be read out will be at least five which have been acquired by a renter or a renting organisation which does its own distribution in America, and which, therefore, is not prepared to part with the foreign rights to any other company. I have made the closest possible inquiries as to what really matters, and that is the

films which we know to be available now for the foreign renter, and I confess I do know of two which have been made, and which are available.

Mr. Bellenger: Which are they?

Mr. Stanley: One is "A Yank at Oxford" and there is one other that I know of.

Sir A. Baillie: The right hon. Gentleman is now anticipating his prophecy.

Mr. Stanley: I always believe that it is just as well to deal with these fallacious arguments beforehand, rather than later. I would therefore press on the House that the mere fact that one particular renter has available more films than he needs is no help at all to the American renter who has been given this limited time in which to obtain those that he requires. I do believe there is a real chance now of the American renters, through the American producers, making a genuine effort, which they never did in 1927, to meet both the letter and the spirit of the law. I believe there is a genuine intention on their part to see whether it is not possible to make over here worthwhile films which can also get into the American market and out of which it is possible to make money even though a large sum has to be spent in producing them. I believe that this last minute addition to that quota could, in the case of a large number of renters, be filled only by hasty improvisations of the "quota quickie" type, which would be the worst possible advertisement for the beginnings of this new Bill. I believe, too, that it would have the worst possible effect upon the co-operation which I feel we are going to get from this section of the industry during next year, and therefore, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords.
With regard to the exhibitors' quota, that was raised almost as a consequential Amendment, the idea being that because the renters' quota went up the exhibitors' quota should go up too. That would be all right if I thought the renters' quota could be put up and filled with good films, but I thing this extra 5 per cent. on the renters' quota would be filled with bad stuff, and I do not see why, if the renters are forced to produce a certain amount of bad stuff, the exhibitors should be forced to take it.
I have given this matter the most careful consideration, and have tried to appreciate to the full the arguments on the other side, but I still remain of the opinion that it is right, in the first year of a big turnover of this kind, to reduce the quota from the more permanent level at which it will stand in the next year. To add to it at the last moment could only mean a filling of the quota by the production of a new and perhaps more expensive, but still undesirable, form of "quota quickie." I therefore appeal to the House to reject the Amendment. I know that hon. Members opposite think that I am always concerned with the renter or with the exhibitor and am thinking nothing of the producer, whereas, as anybody else in my position would have to do, I have to think of all who are concerned in this industry. I cannot concentrate upon one link in the chain, I cannot try to get everything for the producer at the expense of everybody else, or everything for the exhibitor. I have to look at the whole chain, which starts with the producer and does not even end with the exhibitor, but goes on to "the man in the street," who is to see the pictures. I have to try to get a balanced Bill which will build up a sound and solid industry. I do not believe that any section really will gain by securing some temporary advantage over other sections at the expense of efficient production and the entertainment of the public. It is because I think that in the concessions made in the Schedules as the Bill left this House we have reached such a balance that I am not prepared to see an alteration. Therefore, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: So that the council of state shall continue I am obliged once again to agree with the right hon. Gentleman and to disagree with another place. There is such a thing as an Amendment designed to provide more employment for displaced employés, and this is the sort of Amendment one would like to pass to bring them back to their previous occupations. To that extent I should like, if I could see wisdom in it, to support their Lordships and to bring the quota to the highest possible point, but for one or two reasons I am bound to disagree with their Lordships. The right hon. Gentleman has truly said that this renters'

quota affects only the first year of the operation of the Bill, because on the actual results of that year the Films Council will be able to determine what shall be done in subsequent years. In view of the fact that this Bill has been on the stocks for many months and that we are within two or three days of the opening of the first operative year it would be very unwise, and perhaps unfair, now to alter the quota and create more confusion in an industry already pretty well confounded.
As the President has pointed out, if a certain quota has to be fulfilled stories must be found and developed ready for the screen, and an expenditure of £15,000, perhaps £45,000, even £75,000 per film contemplated. If producers are to get a return on their outlay they must devote time and thought to a film or series of films. We cannot turn out films as sausages are turned out of sausage machines, and we ought not to impose impossible conditions on any section of the industry, whether they represent British or American producers. I see no particular reason why I should want to kick American producers in the pants. For many years the cinemas in this country have had to depend upon imported films for 80 or 85 per cent. of their films, and to that extent there is no reason for wanting to do an injury to America or any other country which supplies our needs. Whether the terms and conditions have been fair or unfair during the past 10 years makes no matter. We hope that this Measure will open a new chapter. It is no use hon. Members who represent the point of view of the producers telling the House that last year 220 films were made and that 27½ per cent. of British films were shown on the screen while the quota was only 20 per cent., because even last year there were defaulters. It is not merely a question of the number of films made last year or the number of studios we have to-day compared with the number we had in 1927. What we require more than anything else is films, and not figures, and apparently films in the numbers and of the quality required have not been available. One thing, however, can be said, and it is an argument which those representing the point of view of the producers have used, that if British films of the right kind and with the appropriate entertainment value are available, exhibitors have never been adverse to


showing them on the screen. If that had not been so we should not have had the 27½ per cent. last year while the quota was only 20 per cent.
Every calculation which has been made has been made, apparently, on the basis of a 15 per cent. quota for the first year. On top of that the right hon. Gentleman has made one or two important concessions to British producers. The treble quota is certain to provide a bigger margin for British producers, perhaps a margin of 20 or 30 extra films. So far as the right hon. Gentleman has given us any information on this point he has not yet been able to tell us that British producers will fill in that margin, but in all probability the British producers will not lose. There are those who produce films in Britain to meet renters' quota, those who produce films in Britain to supply their own circuits, and those who produce films in Britain for independent sale, and it may very well be that between the treble quota, the double quota, the reciprocity proposals, the £15,000 films, and the films that may be produced which do not cost £15,000 but can sell on their merits the interests of all can be reasonably met in the first year. In that way the relations between all sections of the industry might be improved.
It is too late in the day to disturb the balance which had been obtained by the new proposals made in another place. There are opportunities for those who make "shorts," for those who make films of not less than £15,000, and for films of £20,000 or £30,000, and the costlier and, I hope, higher quality films. If the obligation to make more films were imposed upon producers it might mean in the next 12 months another flood of "quota quickies" which, though possibly of higher quality, would not reflect credit on the British industry, and I prefer that we should await the experience of the next 12 months to add to that of the previous 10 years and then re-examine the whole position. If we take full advantage of the facilities afforded in this Bill I think it will be possible to lay foundations upon which a solid industry may be erected.

7.30 p.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The President of the Board of Trade took upon himself the

role of prophet. He was quite certain, he was prepared to bet large sums—[Interruption]—well, I thought so—as to what speeches would be made by myself and my hon. Friends who support the Lords Amendment. We were going to roll off the titles of films, and so on. I am extremely sorry to disappoint him. Nothing that he said was anything near the facts so far as my speech is concerned.

Mr. Stanley: My hon. and gallant Friend does not disappoint me at all. If only he and his hon. Friends would drop what has been an unsound argument—

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Very well. The President of the Board of Trade will remember that in dealing with this question in Committee he brought forward, as the basis of the whole of his argument for the reduction of these quotas, that it was almost entirely a question of mathematics. To-night he is telling the House that that does not matter. It does not matter what was produced. It is something else now. In Committee, the President of the Board of Trade cited the example of 50 films being produced—

Mr. Stanley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that we were then discussing the exhibitors' quota. Now we are discussing the renters' quota.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Excuse me, but it was not so. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debate he will find that it was the renters' quota. He said that 50 would be reduced voluntarily, and that there would be 100 altogether. He expected to get 450 from America. Was that the exhibitors' quota? I need not go through the whole argument, but I remember it very well. Now the right hon. Gentleman comes to the House and says: "All that does not matter at all." That does not seem to me to be a very sound position. Under the Act of 1927 the renter is required to fulfil a quota of 20 per cent., but that percentage is on the footage of all films, long and short, exhibited. There is a general idea that under that Act there was no short film quota at all, but that is erroneous, because the renter had to fulfil a 20 per cent. quota for long films and short films. He could, under that Act, set against a short film a long film, if he desired to do so, and in many cases he did so. On the other hand, in many cases he acquired


short films and set them against short films, but he had a quota both for long and for short films.
The difference under the Bill is that long and short films each have their own separate and distinct quota, 20 per cent. for the long films and 15 per cent. for the short films. It is being argued that this arrangement will be a burden upon the renter which he ought not to be asked to undertake because the exhibitor will not find sufficient films to fulfil his quota. Let me take the case of a renter who, to fulfil his 20 per cent. quota last year, acquired 20 long films, that is, for the whole of the 20 per cent. of films, long and short, but 15 of those long films he set against the long films, and five of them he set against short films. Under the Bill with a 20 per cent. long film quota, the renter will now fulfil his long film quota with 15 long films. He is not permitted to fulfil any of his short film quotas with long films, as he was under the Act of 1927.
The position will be therefore that the renter will be acquiring only 15 long films, five less than he was acquiring before. The introduction of the separate quotas will therefore have the effect upon the renter that he will acquire fewer long films than he acquired under the Act of 1927, and that is a very strong argument, not for reducing the renters' quota but for increasing it. It is very important to remember that under the Bill as it stands the total footage on which the renter has to work out his percentage is less than it was under the 1927 Act, because the renters' quota is 20 per cent. and the exhibitors' quota is now only 15 per cent., whereas it was 20 per cent. under the Act. There is a reduction of 5 per cent. For those reasons the argument which has been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman is not an argument for a reduction in the renters' quota but rather for an increase in the renters' quota.
One other point relates to the cost test, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He said that the effect of it had been to make the cheapest class of goods, but it was now going to have the effect of making expensive goods. During that turnover from cheapest, to expensive goods there was to be an interim time, and we had to consider the man who was running the factory and give him an

opportunity to adjust himself to the new conditions. It was always the intention of the 1927 Act that the renter should acquire films at a reasonably good price. He did not do so. He got round the Act and deliberately defaulted. Having found that out by bitter experience, and he having produced the abominable quota quickie which has done so much to discredit the British film industry, we are by means of the Bill, introducing compulsion on the renter by putting on a cost test in order to make him do by law what he ought to have been doing during the whole of the last 10 years. Because we are now forcing the American renter in that way, the President of the Board of Trade says, "Poor man; we really must consider him." That is not a very sound argument. A man has evaded the law, and we are now forcing him to do what we intended he should have done all the time, and we are told that in consequence we should consider him. That is the argument of the President of the Board of Trade, and I thought it was rather a poor one, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Suppose, when this Bill becomes law, the renter finds ways and means of evading the intentions of the law once more; will the President of the Board of Trade come to this House again and say, although we have endeavoured to put in something to prevent such evasions, we have failed, "We are now imposing further restrictions upon the renter, and so we really must consider him again"? Are we to give way to him once more? That is hardly an argument which can find favour with the House, but it is one of those put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of pure argument the right hon. Gentleman has made out no case for a reduction of the renters' quota.
With regard to the exhibitors' quota, this was raised in another place from 12½ per cent. to 15 per cent., and the argument is that the exhibitors' will default, and will not be able to satisfy the quota of 15 per cent. The answer I would give is that if the exhibitor can fulfil a 12½ per cent. quota when the renters' quota is 15 per cent., he can more easily fulfil a 15 per cent. quota, as suggested in another place, when the renters' quota is 20 per cent. The reason is that you are increasing the ex-


hibitors' quota by 2½ per cent. and increasing the renters' quota, from which the exhibitor draws his supply, by 5 per cent. The exhibitor is therefore better off under the Amendment moved in another place than he is under the Bill as it stands. The President of the Board of Trade would, therefore, make the position of the exhibitor more difficult in the first year than it will be made by the Amendment which was moved in another place, and for that reason I strongly support that Amendment.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I wish to raise a question on some of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. He seems to want the best of both worlds. He repeats his own argument in order to convince us, and, if that will not do, he attempts to destroy our argument in advance. It is somewhat similar to what happens in another sphere of life with which the right hon. Gentleman is conversant and in which an owner runs two horses both from the same stable. With one he declares to win. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman has brought out two horses and he has declared to win on his own argument part of which he put to us in Committee. In asking us this afternoon to reject the Lords Amendment he bases his argument on the position that, owing to the short time the renters have had to forecast their requirements, there will not be enough films for either exhibitors or renters to call upon in the forthcoming year. In the Committee, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Padding-ton (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has said, the right hon. Gentleman based his whole argument on mathematics. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote his words. He said:
As far as the first year is concerned, it is largely a mathematical question.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must know that I was talking about the first year of the exhibitors' quota.

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. I shall show that the right hon. Gentleman connected the two subjects. True, when he made that statement he was dealing with the exhibitors' quota, but he related the exhibitors' quota to the renters' quota, and the exhibitors' quota was based to some

extent on the renters' quota. He went on to say:
You can make a fairly exact calculation of the number of renters' films which will be available, and then you have to make the assumption of the number of films which will be available independently of the renters' quota. I am assuming, on past statistics, that during the year, apart from specialised films, there will be some 450 films imported from abroad, and those would require against them, if there were no provisions for either reciprocity or double or treble quota, 80 long British films."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT (Standing Committee A), 8th February, 1938; cols. 455 and 459.]
Then he went on to say how those films should be produced. With regard to the renters' quota, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If I may deal on that basis with the renters' quota, I am of opinion that it is impossible to make any alteration in it. The reason why for the first year it was dropped from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. was … that you are introducing a new set of conditions. The cost tests, the certainty that every quota film the renter makes or buys has to be a film on which money and trouble have been spent, in comparison with the 'quota quickies,' which require no organisation, cash or intelligence—these things do create a new circumstance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 10th February, 1938: col. 480.]
In other words, the whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that the time has not been long enough for the producers and renters to make up their requirements, because they have to change over to a cost basis, which is going to make them produce more costly films. If we take the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 450 imported films next year, then, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said, on a 15 per cent. quota, 80 films would be required. I will read to the House a list of those films about which the right hon. Gentleman has given us some intelligent anticipation—I will not call it prophecy. I am going to read it because it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to say whether those films are already there to be registered or not, or whether they will fulfil the requirements. If they do fulfil the requirements and are already there, then, I submit, a good deal of his argument is destroyed.

Mr. Stanley: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not omit to tell the House to whom they belong, and whether the owners are prepared to dispose of them to American renters.

Mr. Bellenger: I am going to read the list of films so that the right hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity of saying whether they will fulfil the requirements or not. If they will, I maintain that his argument is destroyed; if they will not, it will support his argument. There are nine treble quota films, which will count as 27 under this Bill, available for registration. One is "A Yank at Oxford," which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already admitted would qualify. Then there are, "He was Her Man," "The First and the Last," "The Drum," "The Challenge," "Over the Moon," "Conquest of the Air," "Vessel of Wrath," and "St. Martin's Lane." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman cannot give the answer to my question at the moment, but at any rate he will be able to see whether these films will be there in the first year for registration. Then come the double quota films, with regard to which it will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Gentleman's prophecy turns out to be correct. They are these: "Strange Boarders of Palace Crescent," "Convict 99," "Kate Plus Ten," "A Spot of Bother," "Alf's Button Afloat," "Lost Lady," "Lover's Knot," and "Star of the Circus." If all of these films will qualify—

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid there is some misunderstanding. It is not a question whether they can be registered for renters' quota, but whether, being in the hands of certain producers and renters, they are available for acquisition by American renters. Unless the hon. Gentleman gives the names of the organisations that have already acquired these films, he is not really giving the House much guidance.

Mr. Bellenger: I think I am right in saying that all these films that I have read out are in the hands of two organisations, and I venture to suggest—I am open to correction—that they are available for registration. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to say that they are not available for registration.

Mr. Stanley: I recognise one, at any rate, that is certainly not available to the ordinary renter.

Mr. Bellenger: I am reading this list because I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman does not, that some renters have intelligently anticipated the provisions of this Bill. After all, they have

been in close touch with the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and, although they could not guarantee that this House would pass what the right hon. Gentleman put before it, or what would eventually be passed by the other House, they could get just as good an idea of what was in the minds of the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters as we could in Committee. If these films are available for registration—it may be, of course, that they are not—I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's own mathematical test is very largely answered by this list, which includes 43 of the 80 films that he says are required. Whether I am right or wrong in my contention that at any rate a good number of these films are available, I have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of testing his own prophetic powers. I think, myself, that the reduction of the quota from 20 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the first year was unwise, and, although we are told that this is a non-party Bill, I personally am in favour of the Amendment which the Lords have sent back to this House. I am not prepared to go so far as to divide the House on the issue, but I am not prepared to accept without question the calculations which the right hon. Gentleman has made and the arguments which he has put before the House this evening.

7.53 p.m.

Sir A. Baillie: I venture to intervene for a few moments in support of the Lords Amendment, and particularly in support of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The President of the Board of Trade was modest enough not to claim the power of second sight. On some occasions I may have been prepared to give him or his Department the benefit of the arguments I desired to put, but on this occasion I did not do so. While my hon. and gallant Friend was not in possession of the document which was read out by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, I must admit that I was—

Mr. Stanley: It was very unkind to have left out the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir A. Baillie: If my right hon. Friend desires to use the argument that there will not be, or is not at present, a sufficient quantity of films which are available and will qualify for renters' quota,


I think it is up to him to prove his case. Looking through this list, I have come to the conclusion that at least one-half, if not 75 per cent., of the films mentioned in it are obviously the property of American renters, but perhaps my information is not accurate. We share the same view about "A Yank at Oxford." "He was Her Man" was made for Fox Films; "The First and Last" was made at Denham. I do not know who has acquired that film but if is reasonable to suppose that it is available for renters' registration. Then there is "The Drum," which I understand has been acquired by United Artists—

Mr. Stanley: They do not need it; they always have a large British surplus.

Sir A. Baillie: United Artists will no doubt use the two pictures mentioned in this list for the purposes of acquiring quotas, namely "The Drum" and "Over the Moon." Fifty, or it may be 75, per cent. of these pictures will automatically qualify for treble quota, or will be acquired for that purpose. Therefore, I agree that it is unwise for the right hon. Gentleman to brush aside as of no account at all the. statement that quite a number of pictures are at present available for renters' quota. I do not intend to press the matter to a Division, but I must say that at no stage of the Bill have I or my friends been satisfied of the validity of the arguments used by the Government, and I cannot agree that these Amendments, which will merely re-impose the 20 per cent. quota on renters and leave them with the same requirement that they have to fulfil to-day, will place upon them too onerous a burden; nor can I agree with the argument that, having got to this stage, within three days of the year in which renters must operate under the new arrangement, it will really be too bad of this House to disappoint the anticipations which the renters have entertained up to date. Having uttered what may be considered as a mild protest, I must add that I have felt all along that the production side of this industry has not been given a square deal. It appears to me that the Bill has been influenced by other bodies representing exhibitors, and that it may even have been influenced by the foreign interests themselves. For these reasons I cannot but support the

principle of the Lords Amendments, but, in view of the stage which has now been reached, I shall not press my view to a Division.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Day: This is another case in which I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I understand the conditions of the trade better than some of those hon. Members who have spoken, but I must say that some of their arguments show that a little book knowledge of a subject is dangerous, especially on the question of what should be registered and what films are available for registration. Even supposing the films in question to be registered, that does not make them available for renting. If they are available for renting, that is not to say that the exhibitors are going to show them. And even if the exhibitors were to try to force them in some of their halls, that is not to say that the public are going to pay their money to go in and see something which they do not want to see. You cannot force people to buy something which they do not want. Throughout the discussions on this Bill I have been thinking how much better it would have been if, when the Bill of 1927 was going through, we could have had the advice that we now have. We know the mistakes that were made then, and for my part I thank the right hon. Gentleman for trying to remedy some of the evils which the trade has had to suffer while the Act of 1927 has been working.
I hope that when this Bill is passed into law, as it will be shortly, we shall see a great deal of difference in the trade. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down mentioned United Artists. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the film trade knows that United Artists have the finest British films for renting purposes. They have the sole production of Korda's films, the London Film Company's films, and those of various other companies, which give them one of the strongest hands as far as renting is concerned. I do not say that they are the finest renting organisation in the country, but they have some of the finest films. I hope that we shall see the Amendment disposed of without difficulty, so that we can assist the right hon. Gentleman to make this a good Bill.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 43, line 21, column 1, agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Stanley, Captain Wallace, Mr. T. Williams, Mr. Mander, and Mr. H. G. Williams.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Stanley.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords—[Mr. Stanley.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [16th March].
That this House approves the Observations of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation.
Which Amendment was: In line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in view of the disclosures of long-standing Ministerial neglect and of gross inefficiency in the management of a heavily subsidised company, the explanations and proposals of His Majesty's Government cannot be regarded as adequate to allay public concern."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

8.5 p.m.

Major Milner: In continuing this Debate, I propose to deal with two or three subjects which were not very fully covered a little over a week ago. In the first place, I notice that the Government, in their comments on the Cadman Committee's report, say:
The report of the committee deals, as the Government intended that it should, fully and comprehensively with the problems of civil aviation.
My first observation is that the report does nothing of the sort, because the

Government excluded from the consideration of that committee certain aspects of civil aviation; for example, the matters which had been the subject of consideration by the Maybury Committee. In my judgment, neither the Cadman Committee nor the Government have dealt satisfactorily with one problem. That is the problem of internal aviation in this country. The Government say, in their comments, that they propose to make further efforts to assist civil aviation; but little or nothing is proposed with regard to civil aviation either by the committee or the Government. It is true that the committee say that the Government should speed up the implementing of the recommendations of the Maybury Committee. That, in itself, is a comment on the inactivity of the Government in regard to the recommendations of the Maybury Committee, which reported over a year ago.
The only other main recommendation, at any rate, made by the Cadman Committee, is that certain equipment shall be provided for selected aerodromes. There are three points in respect of which I want to comment on the Government's inaction in these matters. The first is with regard to civil aerodromes. In 1928 and 1929 I was a member of the City Corporation of Leeds, and, for the time being, was chairman of the committee which had to deal with the provision of aerodromes. I recollect the great pressure which was put on the corporation, as it was no doubt on many other corporations, to provide aerodromes. That corporation, like many others, went to a great deal of expense and trouble to provide an aerodrome. The purchase price was between £30,000 and £40,000. Since then; under pressure from the Air Ministry, something like £100,000 has been spent on the aerodrome; Although services ran for a time, none is running to-day from that aerodrome.

Sir Edmund Findlay: Was that £100,000 apart from the cost of building?

Major Milner: Of course, that includes the cost of the buildings—quite inadequate ones—which are now on the site. They consist of an old hangar or two and clubhouse premises. The point I was making is that the Leeds Corporation, under pressure, and as a result of all kinds of encouragement, except financial,


from the Air Ministry, provided that aerodrome, and that, except for a little flying by a few people who take advantage of it—private individuals who have the money to enable them to learn to fly—and I think some auxiliary flying unit of some kind—it is quite useless. So far as real assistance to civil aviation is concerned, that money was practically wasted. Civil aviation is a national matter, and it should be for the Government to provide the necessary financial assistance to local authorities or others who provide aerodromes for general use. The Government should reconsider the great necessity of making grants to municipalities which have aerodromes. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson), I have no doubt, would reinforce my plea, as I know that the Corporation of Blackpool have similarly spent large sums under pressure from Government Departments. For military, as well as civil, reasons, the expenditure of money on these aerodromes is necessary.
The Government have grossly neglected their duty in regard to financial support for those aerodromes which were established at their suggestion and with then-encouragement and promises. On the question of internal air lines, there was the same encouragement by words but not in the form of financial assistance. Practically the whole of the Government's comments on the Cadman Report deal with Empire or overseas air lines and there is hardly a paragraph dealing with these internal lines. It is said that we must subsidise our Empire and overseas lines for considerations of prestige. You would get just as much prestige through having satisfactory air lines in this country as through having them outside. People from the Continent, from America and elsewhere are amazed that they cannot, without great difficulty, get from place to place in this country, although the distances are so small, in the way that they can in Europe, and still more in America. The same reasons of prestige that compelled the Government to give help to overseas and Empire lines should apply in regard to the internal air fines.
I am not particular what form such assistance would take. I dislike subsidies, but I think they have some justification in asking for assistance in regard to the Petrol Duty on the same lines as

the assistance given to the other air lines. Such few air lines and aerodromes as we have at present for civil purposes are obviously going to be closed down unless help is forthcoming. In a recent copy of the "Yorkshire Post" I saw a notice of a curtailment of the services of North-Eastern Airways, Limited, following on the report of the Cadman Committee. North-Eastern Airways, Limited, who have, notwithstanding, I think, considerable losses, done their best to operate services to the north of England, have now written to the Doncaster Corporation in these terms:
While at the moment, in spite of the heavy cost of continuing our services we have decided not to cease operations entirely, we have come to the conclusion that it is necessary severely to curtail expenditure we are incurring by the provision of subsidiary services to our main line. We regret to say that your aerodrome"—
that is the Doncaster one—
is one which may be affected in so far as. Instead of scheduling regular stocks, it is more economical to schedule it only as a request stop, and, furthermore, the feeder services which we have hitherto operated may be entirely eliminated and the proposed new services between Grimsby, Hull, Leeds and Doncaster may not be run unless the Government's decision to render no assistance whatever can be reversed.
They conclude—
'"We fear that unless the Government can be made to appreciate the necessity of assisting the internal development of national air services it is only a matter of a comparatively short space of time before most of them will cease to exist.
I understand that a similar letter has been sent to Hull, Grimsby, Leeds and Bradford Corporations. It is quite obvious that, unless the Government take action in this respect, even the few services which at present exist will entirely cease. The Government are very much to blame for having for many years encouraged these services to operate and corporations to provide aerodromes, and, notwithstanding the perilous times in which we live, not having encouraged the provision of pilots and air services, and the creation of a condition of air-mindedness. All these factors, I should have thought, would have made any Government see the absolute necessity of giving assistance in one direction or another to these internal air lines, and particularly to municipal and other aerodromes.
The only other question with which I want to deal is that of the provision of


pilots. I know that hon. Members like myself have received a very illuminating memorandum on this subject. In these days I should certainly have thought that the provision of pilots was the one essential thing in our rearmament programme. I am told that while men are joining up to be pilots there are great difficulties in the way, that the facilities are nothing like what they ought to be, and that comparatively few can be trained. Here is an opportunity for the Government to assist the aerodromes to which I have referred, and the internal air lines to provide, at a minimum of expense, the maximum of reserve pilots for any emergency which may come upon us. I am told—I am not a flying man myself—that while it is necessary to be a skilful pilot to fly a bomber, it is not necessary to be as skilful to fly a bomber as to fly an interceptor, and that comparatively little instruction is required in the one case as compared with the other. I am further told that, if adequate use was made of these aerodromes, pilots could be educated and made fit in every respect to act as pilots of bombing machines for something like £50 to £60 a year, without putting any charge whatever upon the pilots.
I know many young men who would like to learn to fly. They cannot afford to do so, and yet, if adequate assistance was given by the Government to these aerodromes, through the facilities provided there, free opportunities for learning to fly might be provided, and in that way thousands of young pilots could be educated in this country to take their place in the Air Force if ever there was the necessity for them to do so. There are schools for air training in the country, but they could be expanded to hundreds if the Government would tackle the question as they ought to do. I am told that to-day not more than 800 pilots per annum can be trained. It would be possible, if assistance were given in these directions, to have not hundreds but many thousands trained.
The figure given in the pamphlet to which I refer is something like 50,000 new pilots per annum. It may not be desirable to train so large a number as that, but it is necessary at any rate to train a great number of pilots. I should like to see a citizen air force. Forty years ago it was a great novelty to drive a motor car. I had an opportunity in those very early

days of riding in one of the first half-dozen motor cars in this country. The car was laughed at as it went along at 15, and occasionally with great difficulty at 20 miles an hour. We all know of the developments which have taken place in motor cars in these days, and there are comparatively few people who have no knowledge of them, and a very great number have sufficient knowledge to enable them to drive. I believe that things will be just the same in regard to flying in the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.
Here is an opportunity to help municipal aerodromes and internal air lines, and to create a citizen air force, and, at the same time, develop air-mindedness and a force of pilots, which, I believe, may be required in an emergency. It would not require, as far as the instruction of pilots is concerned, great capital expenditure. There are the facilities, if grants could be made to keep them up-to-date, and, particularly, if some concession could be made by way of petrol tax. Free instruction could then be provided for all who were fitted to receive it. I believe that the Government have been neglectful in all three matters, and I shall, therefore, support the Amendment which was moved a week ago by my right hon. Friend.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Everard: I am sure that all who have listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) will agree with the idea that he has in mind, but I do not think that it is quite as easy to carry it out as the pamphlet from which he has quoted would suggest. I do not wish to follow him through the whole of his remarks, but to devote myself to some other points in the Cadman Report. I would like to say how much we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) in enabling this inquiry into civil aviation to take place. It is not very often that we have a chance in this House of having a Debate on aviation, and we are greatly indebted to him for allowing it to be ventilated on this occasion. I would also like to pay my respects to the Cadman Committee, as one who gave evidence before them, for the courtesy they showed to witnesses and the quickness with which their deliberations were achieved. The general findings of the committee, as far


as I see them, are summed up in one phrase in paragraph 7 that
This country is backward in civil air transport.
I do not think that there are many people in this House who would dispute that fact, but various conclusions have been drawn from that fact with which I do not agree. I do not agree that it has been the fault of the Air Ministers concerned that this state of affairs exists to-day. I well remember, as indeed all my hon. Friends remember, the case it was necessary for us to make out in the country in 1931 for extreme economy upon all sides of our public life. It would be absurd to suggest that the then Secretary of State for Air could have taken the responsibility for initiating at great expense a great forward step in civil aviation at a time when everybody else in the country was preaching the doctrine of economy. After the period of my right hon. Friend Lord Londonderry came the present Secretary of State for Air. He was in rather a different position from that of Lord Londonderry, because whereas Lord Londonderry was short of money, the present Secretary of State had the opportunity of having the money, but, unfortunately, he had to find the money for other sides of aviation not connected so directly with the civil side that we are discussing to-night.
When we are examining this problem we ought to be quite fair about it. Those of us who have talked about the two sides, the economy side and the great importance of the military expansion side, should give full credit to the Ministers concerned for having carried out those particular sides of the Air Ministry's work in preference to civil aviation. Where I differ from the present Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary is that when the Air Navigation Bill was before the House of Commons in 1936 the Air Ministry asked for a maximum of only £1,500,000 subsidy for civil aviation for the next 17 years. Therefore, £1,500,000 was the maximum subsidy to be expended on civil aviation for 17 years. I cannot believe that that showed very great foresight. Seeing that we have to spend such vast sums of money on military aviation, it is certainly a very small thing that we are to have only £1,500,000 for civil aviation over that long period. That brings me to a point in the Cadman Committee's

Report where they recommend—and the recommendation has been accepted by the Government—that this maximum sum should be doubled and should become £3,000,000. We are anxious that a Bill should be brought in this Session in order that the £3,000,000 may take the place of the £1,500,000 as the maximum to be expended on civil aviation. Things do not move very quickly in the Parliamentary world, and we cannot do anything as regards the expenditure of the £3,000,000 until the Act has been passed. Therefore, we ask that the Act should be passed at the earliest possible moment.
Now I come to the Parliamentary position. I feel sure that I am speaking on behalf of everybody, when I say how delighted we are that the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is giving his great services to the cause of aviation. Nobody would think of be littling those services, but his appointment does not quite meet the point which I had foreseen in regard to the Parliamentary position. I realise that to appoint another permanent Under-Secretary would mean an Act of Parliament, but if it is necessary to have three Ministers for the Admiralty and three for the War Office, which are old Services, with traditions behind them, it is certainly necessary to have three Ministers permanently for the Air Ministry, which has no traditions behind it, and has to plough new furrows the whole time. It also has to deal with the whole of civil aviation and the whole of the transport work of aviation as well. Therefore, I regret that we have not permanently three Ministers for the Air Ministry. There has been considerable discussion for some time on the question whether or not civil aviation should be divorced altogether from the Air Ministry.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I should not like my hon. Friend to be under a misapprehension. I am, in fact, doing permanent work at the Air Ministry. I am thereby relieving my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of many duties, thus leaving him free to devote his time to civil aviation. Many years ago I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Admiralty, and I should say that, as regards allocation of ministerial duties, the present system at the Air Ministry does, roughly, resemble that at the Admiralty.

Mr. Everard: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear to my Noble Friend. What I meant was that with the Noble Lord assisting us we are all right, but it is only a temporary expedient, and what I was anxious to do by Act of Parliament was to create three Ministers for the Air Ministry, in order that the Air Ministry may be put in exactly the same position as the Admiralty and the War Office. When I served on the Gorell Committee there was difference of opinion. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and others signed a minority report suggesting that it would be necessary to transfer civil aviation from the Air Ministry to some other Department. Others of us thought differently, but the findings of the committee went to show that we were only satisfied that civil aviation should remain with the Air Ministry, without reconsideration, for 10 years. Time is passing and it may well be that within the next few years we shall form a committee to take another decision on this point.
It seems to me that if we had a watertight compartment dealing with civil aviation, with its own Minister, which we have at the moment, but only temporarily, it would be much easier for the ordinary person to form a judgment as to whether or not the civil side of the Air Ministry as a watertight compartment could go completely over to another Ministry, or whether it is so involved with the military side that it is to the advantage of the civil side to remain with the Air Ministry. It is only by having, as we have now, although temporarily, a definite Under-Secretary dealing with civil aviation that we can attempt to deal with the problem and have a better perspective of what the future position should be. I am delighted that the Government have seen fit to appoint a Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Air, and particularly the present Permanent Under-Secretary, who has done so much for air service both in regard to the postal service and in connection with Imperial lines and Imperial postage, which we all appreciate so much.
Now I come to the point which was the real bone of contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—the question of Imperial Airways. I have no very particular opinion on this point, but we have to look at it from a broad point of view. We have to realise that some Imperial

company, acting on behalf of the people of Great Britain, has to organise a worldwide transport air service from Great Britain to our Overseas Dominions and Colonies, spreading over a quarter of the world's surface. To get there we have to go over many parts of the world. This means a great responsibility for the people who have to organise a service which has to link up the whole of the outlying parts of the British Empire with this country. I agree with my hon. Friend that one can pick a great many holes in Imperial Airways, for instance, in the technical equipment and in the operational methods of that company. It can be said that we are very far behind the Americans, but do not let us forget that the Americans, at least, have their own continent upon which to put their own ground services, while we have to pass not only over foreign countries but over our self-governing Dominions and Colonies, and it is extremely difficult as well as expensive to lay down those particular types of ground services which we are bound to have if we are to have the up-to-date equipment which they use in America.
We have also to take into consideration the fact that all these things cost money. The more money you are prepared to pay out in subsidies the better show you are going to have for flying. Everybody knows, to quote the words of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that civil aviation cannot fly by itself in any part of the world on these great lines. Your aircraft and certainly your ground equipment depend on the amount of money you can afford to spend upon them, and if we consider the figures we shall realise that the subsidy we have been giving is about one-third of that given by the French and German Governments and about one-half of that given by the Italians. If we had had the same subsidy as is given in other countries there is no doubt that we should have been much more forward with our equipment and our aircraft than we are.
I do not think it is altogether a question of our Imperial air routes. These, I agree, can be speeded up. We have just seen the marvellous flight of Flying Officer Clouston to New Zealand and back, another landmark in communications between this country and our overseas Dominions. I think progress on these lines has been well maintained, and there should be some thanks to the


Director-General of Civil Aviation and to the Post Office authorities for the great assistance they have given. It is not their fault that the money has not been forthcoming. What money we have had has, I think, been well laid out in a good network of Imperial communications. Where I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud is in regard to the way in which we have attempted to run our Continental services. Far better to run no service at all than to run the service which was run by Imperial Airways to Budapest with poor machines not up to the standard of other machines flying to the same aerodrome. The service was not run at all in winter, and altogether it was a very unsatisfactory service. Therefore, I am delighted to see that the report is going to give Imperial Airways the job for which it was formed, that is, to develop Imperial airways and to hand over the Continental services to another company. From what they have done in the service to Paris I think this augurs well for the future.
But in regard to the Continental side of this problem it seems to me that we in this country are up against two difficulties. You cannot have the luxury of having an Empire, with far-flung communications, and get off cheaply. That is our problem. We have to spend a large amount of money on our Imperial airlines and at the same time we have to show the flag on the Continent. The German and French airlines run to practically every capital town in every large country in Europe. Our problem is rather more difficult. We are at the end of what I may call the tube system, whereas it is easy for the French and German airlines to get east and west, it is much more difficult for us operating from the extreme western side to get to the extreme eastern side, to Budapest and Constantinople.
There is no doubt that trade does follow the flag, whether it is the Red or White Ensign on the sea, or whether it is the Blue Ensign of the air. We have to show the flag with modern and up-to-date machines in many of the countries in Europe where we are not showing it today. A year or two ago I was in Copenhagen and saw the marvellous display which is given every Sunday in the Copenhagen aerodrome by different types of the Air Force in order to encourage the

population of Denmark in their Air Force. Most of the fighting machines were British machines, but I could not help noticing that while this demonstration was going on every single liner which landed in the aerodrome was flying a flag other than British. What we might have gained in publicity through the Air Force in Denmark we lost by seeing foreign liners arriving in the aerodrome at the same time flying flags other than British. These things mean a great deal to the man in the street, who after all in some countries is still able to affect his Government.
While we can trust these Continental services to British Airways, I hope the Government will see that the other lines who are now operating have a fair deal. There are other lines operating at the moment to the Continent. One goes to Norway, and it has been running at a loss, but at the same time has been doing good work. When fishing in Norway I have received my letters much earlier by this route than I did in the past. I hope the Government will see that these small lines are given a fair show and fair compensation. An hon. and gallant Member opposite spoke about our internal air lines and remarked that the Cadman Committee had not referred to this problem. The answer is clear. The Cadman Committee did not refer to matters raised in the Maybury Committee's Report, which was set up to deal solely with internal air lines. I. imagine that this is one of the problems which give the Government the most difficulty. I cannot make up my own mind as to the future of internal air lines in this country, but I am perfectly certain that if they are run they will have to be subsidised. There is no doubt about that, but I hope it will not result in the smaller people who have lost money in competing aganist the railway companies or some other large body having to close down and then that the railway companies, who will be left in the field, will come to the Government and say: "We have lost money, and we cannot carry on unless we have more money." I hope this aspect of the matter will not be lost sight of when the Government are dealing with internal air lines.
Personally, I believe there is very little future for air lines running from north and south. I believe that until science has progressed further in dispelling fog and we are able to fly in this peculiar


climate of ours with certainty in the winter, there is not much possibility of traffic north and south, and that to-day the only proposals which show any like-la hood of a profit are from east to west or routes which have to pass over water. Those two are the only types of internal air services which are likely to pay at the present time. The Maybury Committee suggested that the Government should try out a service and license a company for that purpose; I shall be very interested to see what are the results of their efforts. I hope that in the end there will not be a monopoly of these services by the railway companies. We have not had a very good deal from the railway companies with regard to aviation. Hon. Members opposite joined with my hon. Friends in bringing considerable pressure to bear on the railway companies concerning their dog-in-the-manger attitude on the booking question. The other day, the Under-Secretary said that he thought that this matter had been cleared up, but I assure him that it has not. There are five more cases which we desire to have looked into and which we shall make efforts to try to get put right. They are the Olley Air Services, the Channel Air Ferries, the Portsmouth and Isle of Wight Services, Norman Edgar Western Airways, and Allied Airways. Those five services are still prevented from booking in the ordinary way, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will assist us in getting that slate of affairs remedied as soon as possible.
I pass now to the next question which my hon. and gallant Friend raised, that of aerodromes. Here again, the Government have taken a rather extraordinary attitude, and instead of giving a subsidy, they have said that they will give certain facilities, namely, wireless facilities, meteorological facilities and night-flying facilities. I was rather amused when I heard about the night-flying facilities, because we have not even day services, let alone night services. I cannot help thinking that the Government believe—quite rightly—that night-flying facilities will be of considerable assistance to the Royal Air Force when they are doing night training; but certainly they will be of no advantage to municipal aerodromes when there are no night services flying. If any municipal aerodrome were asked whether it would rather have even a small subsidy, or be given night-flying facili-

ties, it would say that it would like to have a subsidy until there was some night flying. The position is that in the few places where there is night flying, there are no wireless facilities. Leicester aerodrome, for instance, where only yesterday they were doing some night flying with a two-engined Dragon machine with an antiaircraft battalion, is lighted by the corporation. I suppose that when the Government take over the lighting of aerodromes, they will pay back to the corporation the amount of money which it has cost to light Leicester aerodrome.
Apart from that, however, I was amazed to hear that at that place in the middle of England, where they are doing night flying for the anti-aircraft battalions of Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, they are not allowed to have any form of wireless communication with the aeroplanes. It has happened several times that when members of the club have wished to communicate with the aircraft, perhaps because the lights on the ground had fused or for some other reason they have had to telephone to Croydon aerodrome. On one occasion, for instance, Croydon endeavoured to find the aeroplane in the Croydon wireless-controlled area, and when they did not find it there, they said, "Ring up Heston." On ringing up Heston, it was found that the aeroplane was not in their area, and they suggested that Manchester should be telephoned. So it went on until we got Hull, and eventually the aeroplane was found in that area. By that time, a large amount of money had been spent, and about three-quarters of an hour had been lost. It seems to me to be absurd that at places where night flying takes place, proper facilities are not given.
I wish to make a concrete suggestion to the Under-Secretary. I think the time has come when a survey should be made of all municipal and private aerodromes. The Government are going to license internal air lines, and they will know what main terminal air ports will be required for those air lines. A great many other aerodromes will be left. Some of them may be used for schools, which will bring in a certain income; others may have Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, which will give them a reasonable income; and at others there may be aircraft factories. There may, however, be another class of aerodromes which will have nothing, and it is that class to which I


wish particularly to refer. In the Air Estimates, I see that the Government are spending about £400,000 on the equipment of one aerodrome for the Royal Air Force. Surely, among these municipal aerodromes, there must be some which are not being used for any purpose, and which could be taken over, at any rate temporarily, by the Royal Air Force, the corporation concerned being given a reasonable remuneration. That would be better than buying a new piece of land and building an aerodrome on it, as is the present practice of the Air Ministry. I suggest that when an aerodrome is not being used for any of the purposes I have mentioned, the Air Ministry ought seriously to consider whether, after being enlarged, it could not be taken over by the Royal Air Force in the expansion programme.
It is obvious that whether or not the Government pay a subsidy, they will not allow these aerodromes to be abolished. If any town says that it is going to make a housing estate of its aerodrome, it is obvious that, quite rightly, the Air Ministry will not agree to that. In the event of war, it will be necessary to have an enormous number of aerodromes. We shall not be able to keep all our aircraft at their present aerodromes owing to the danger of their being bombed, and they will have to be sent to small aerodromes throughout the country. In the case of forced landings, when machines are damaged, when they run short of petrol during fighting and cannot get back to their base, and—perhaps the Under-Secretary will not like my mentioning this—if the pilot gets lost when flying by night and is not able to find his way back to his base, it will be necessary to have many aerodromes at which machines can land, throughout the country. Those seem to me to be some of the problems which affect the Government side of the control of these aerodromes. Those problems will have to be tackled, either by paying a subsidy eventually, or by using the aerodromes for the purposes I have mentioned. I think the Government would save a great deal of money if they allocated some of their new schools and new squadrons to some of these aerodromes, instead of incurring the double expense, which they will have to do in the end, of keeping the aerodromes idle, and buying new land for aerodromes for the Royal Air Force.
There is one other matter on which I feel very deeply. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke about the training of pilots. That matter was mentioned in the Cad-man Report, rather too briefly, I think, in view of its importance. In this question, as in that of aerodromes, a proper plan ought to be devised. Much as I dislike a great deal of what is taking place in other countries, and their methods of training, I cannot help feeling that they are working on the right lines. In Germany, for instance, they go as far as to take all the classes in the schools to aerodromes once a week so that the children can have a free look at the flying that is taking place. I do not for one moment suggest that we should go as far as that, but I think we should have a strong section of air scouts. I think I did see in the Estimates an item of £200 in respect of the Air Cadet Corps. I do not know whether or not that referred to the particular kind of association which I have in mind, but it seems to me that every town of decent size should form under the control and with the support of the Air Ministry a corps or squadron of air defence scouts. That would be a beginning in associating boys of school age with aviation. From that, I suggest they should proceed to gliding schools.
I was horrified at the answer given by my hon. and gallant Friend on 2nd March to a question about gliding in England, compared with gliding in Poland and Germany. He told me that the number of gliders used for instructional purposes in this country was 90 and the number of members of gliding clubs 1,000, whereas in Poland there were 30,000 club members of whom 10,000 were pilots. I am informed that in Poland there are 90 centres of gliding and at one Government school alone there are 130 gliders, which is nearly one-and-a-half times as many as we have in the whole country. In Germany there are 50,000 club members under training in gliding. I know the Air Ministry will say that gliding is useless in learning to fly. I do not believe that is so. It may be useless in relation to learning the controls of a fast modern machine, but it is not useless as a training in being by oneself in the air and that is a great thing. It is not only a knowledge of the controls of particular machines that is important. There is great importance in getting accustomed to being alone in the


air and to seeing things from a different angle and generally, in acquiring what is called "air sense," though I do not like the phrase. It would be of great value if we could devise a scheme of starting young fellows as air cadets and then bringing them through gliding schools.
We are spending £5,000 now on gliding, and I think it has been money well spent. We have doubled the number of licences for gliding in the last year. The figure which was 281 in 1936 has risen to 575. But that is only a flea-bite compared with what is being done in Poland, Germany and other countries. It is wrong to say that it is necessary to have special sites for gliding. The winch method of sending off the machine, aero towing, and other devices have made a choice of sites easy, and the competitions in Poland last year took place in the middle of a plain far from any hills. I suggest that we could with good results double the amount which is being spent in this respect. The four main clubs are the London club, the Yorkshire club, the Derbyshire and Lancashire club, and the Midlands club, but there are other smaller clubs which, with additional assistance from the Government, could be brought up to the standard of those four big clubs. I am certain that a scheme which would bring a chance of gliding within the reach of boys would lead to an enormous increase of air sense among the rising generation.
Then they could pass from gliding into membership of light aeroplane clubs. There are clubs to-day which might be described as ultra-light aeroplane clubs. There is one club which I would like my hon. and gallant Friend to visit some day where we have recently trained eight people, and in no case has it cost the man more than £10 to get his licence. The men were trained on a machine with a small engine of 30 horse-power using about 2½ gallons of petrol to the hour. I do not wish, however, to speak of particular light aeroplane clubs. I would only say that there is another outlet for the activities of young men who have passed through the gliding stage, and thus they can progress to the stage of deciding whether to join the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve or an auxiliary squadron or the Royal Air Force itself. I have not time now to elaborate a scheme, but it seems to me that this is a matter which ought to be tackled at once.

We ought to make a start by getting into touch with the young people and giving them some idea of the vast importance of air power to this country to-day.
On the subject of light aeroplane clubs I should also like to point out that no subsidy is given for the training of people who come from the Dominions. It is only given in the case of people who are "substantially resident in this country." I think that is the phrase used. Most people would agree that the training of a man from Australia or New Zealand is just as well worth the £25 subsidy as the training of a Britisher and that the man will be just as valuable as the Britisher. [An HON. MEMBER: "Englishman! "] I do not like to use the word "English" in this connection because Scottish people are liable to jump down one's throat on hearing that word. Further, I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that, although these clubs are full up at the week-end there is a great deal of loss of energy and skill in the fact that instructors and ground engineers have little or nothing to do during three or four days in the week. It should not pass the wit of man to devise a scheme whereby the services of these skilled instructors and engineers could be used for training young men during the week. I believe that if the Government made some arrangement with the clubs, employers would allow young fellows off during the week for two or three hours in the afternoon for training purposes in view of the urgent necessity which exists for training pilots. I cannot help feeling that it is a pity that we should have, on the one hand, a scramble to get into the Reserve schools and long waiting lists, when, perhaps, a few miles away there is a club with a skilled instructor and skilled ground engineers who for three or four days in a week are dealing only with one or two pupils each day. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will look into that question.
I have endeavoured to bring before the House some of the problems which confronted the Cadman Committee. I speak only for myself in the views which I have expressed on the problems which arise. I cannot agree that any responsibility for the present position rests with either of the Air Ministers concerned. It rests with us on this side of the House, if hon. Members opposite like to put it that way, for the action which we took in connec-


tion with the economy campaign of 1931, or it rests with the whole House to-day, in the action which it is now taking. But for the future responsibility there can be no doubts. We are bound, as the Cadman Committee say, to recognise that civil and military aviation have to go hand in hand and I believe that under the dual control in this House of my Noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary we shall see both progressing to the general well-being of the country.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I would like to make some contribution to this Debate, because I believe it was I who first raised the question of the dismissed pilots at the very beginning of the present Session. The Cadman Report is a devastating condemnation of the Air Ministry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), who has just made such a very interesting speech, cannot, I think, get away with it quite as easily as he was inclined to do. He said that we are responsible for what has gone wrong, but as a matter of fact the direct responsibility rests with the Minister of the Crown. We know the various words that were used in the report—"neglect," "extreme disquiet," "nobody's baby," and things of that kind—and one wonders how many more undisclosed items of dissatisfaction there may be in regard to other sections of the Air Ministry. We have to remember too that the Government told us that there was nothing wrong at all and that there was no necessity for any inquiry, and when the inquiry was finally forced upon them they appointed one of such a kind, consisting as it did of civil servants, that, if we think it over now, we must appreciate it could never have presented a report of the kind which we have had from the Cadman Committee, not that the facts were not the same, but that they were in such a position as civil servants that they would have found it very difficult to say what they thought of the Air Ministry in the way that more independent people could do.
I would refer to the Debate on 24th November, when the matter was dealt with in such a very remarkable way by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins). It was, I think, my hon.

and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) who got up on behalf of the apologists for the Government, before the full flood of criticism had surmounted the banks and borne all before it, and actually moved an Amendment to the effect that this House was not of opinion that a public inquiry would serve any useful purpose. I wonder whether he thinks so still. We should not have known all these things but for the inquiry. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) said the proposal itself was a Vote of Censure on the Government and on the Air Ministry. We are glad to know that. The Under-Secretary of State, when he wound up that Debate, said that if this was not the head of the Secretary of State, at any rate it was the scalp. I maintain now that we want the head, and it seems to me that in the circumstances it would not have been inappropriate for the Secretary of State, knowing his responsibility, to have resigned of his own motion. We remember the case of Sir Austen Chamberlain, when he had no more responsibility, resigning over the Mesopotamian campaign, but, of course, the qualities that bring a man to resignation of high office are not given to everyone.
I think the proposal to make the Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster responsible in this House for military aviation, and to be in the Cabinet, is a very good one. I am sure that he will do it most admirably, and I am very glad the Government have not decided to appoint another Under-Secretary of State by legislation. We have far too many Members of this House dependent on the Government in one way or another already. There are nearly 100 of them, and we do not want to add to their number. Before long there will be nobody outside the Government if we go on at this rate. I shall be outside, of course, but everybody else will be inside. I would be in favour of another Under-Secretary of State if you at the same time took away one of the unnecessary Members of the Government, but on the whole and for the moment I think the question has been dealt with in a very satisfactory way. It would be still better if the Noble Lord himself were Secretary of State, but as it happens the man who is chiefly responsible still remains holding the seals of office.
Let me pass from the political side to the more technical, aviation side. I agree that the appointment of Sir Donald Banks is a most admirable one, and I am sure that under his administration there will be none of that criticism that has occurred during the last few years, I am sure with some foundation, that if you wanted to get on well at the Air Ministry, if you wanted to get contracts, you had got to know the right people, you had got to be well in. Whether or not there is any foundation for that, I am certain it is very widely held, and it is not a desirable state of affairs; and I am sure that every effort will be made to remove that feeling. Another position that is very important and that will, I suppose, have to be filled in due course is that of Director-General of Civil Aviation. It seems to me that when the next appointment comes to be made there, you want somebody of outstanding business experience, from outside, somebody with drive and energy to make the position go. It is not altogether a position for the ordinary type of civil servant. I make no criticism of anybody, but so very much depends on the personality of the individual who holds this great position. Consideration will also have to be given to another very important position, namely, that of Director of Operational Service and Intelligence. Then we come to another personal question, that of the managing director of Imperial Airways. I am sure that the person concerned is a man of great ability and integrity and has rendered very high service, and I hope he will continue to do so, but it does not follow that every man has got into the exact niche that suits him best, and there was a feeling shown by the Cadman Report that probably he would be able to render better service to the country in some other department.
Now let me say something about Imperial Airways and British Airways. I am glad that steps are being taken to appoint full-time chairmen of these companies and also, I assume, certain additional full-time directors. A chairman alone is not enough, and the Cadman Report referred to that. I cannot think that to have directors who attend the meetings once a month, hear the accounts given, and read the minutes perhaps are really able to keep in very close touch with what is going on. There are such

things as the building-up of losses. It has been suggested that certain companies—British Airways—deliberately build up losses. You want Government directors who can watch that, who can see very carefully whether anything of the kind is taking place. Who is the Government watchdog for these purposes in British Airways? Lord Monsell. We in this House appreciate to the full the many admirable qualities of that Noble Lord, but I do not think his best friend would recommend him as possessing great business capacity, financial insight, accounting experience, or anything of that kind, and it seems to me that it would be very regrettable if the idea got about that appointments as Government directors on these various companies were going to be given to ex-Cabinet Ministers, because that is what it looks like. With all respect to the Noble Lord concerned, it does not seem to me that this particular appointment, having regard to the high responsibility and qualities required, was at all a happy one. British Airways require some change, I think, in their organisation. I understand that they are owned by two financial houses, Erlangers and Whitehall Securities, who are owed something like £200,000. If they are going to undertake the very important national duties now to be allocated to them, I should have thought you wanted to alter that position, which does not appear to be quite seemly. Surely you want some sort of semi-public utility company to take on this work, and not leave it purely in the hands of financial houses. These two houses also have considerable shareholding in Imperial Airways, I understand.
I would like to make reference to the position of Allied Airways, both to their Scottish route and to their Norwegian route. Some reference has already been made to that matter in this Debate. That company was introduced to the Air Ministry in 1936. It opened proceedings in 1937 and Norway was perfectly satisfied. The Cadman Report, however, did not consider the possibility of making use of the services of that company owing to the fact that the Air Ministry omitted to give its name as that of a company engaged on European air services. For that reason it was precluded from having the opportunity of laying its case before the Committee. If that is so, it should have special consideration, apart from


any decision that may have been come to. This company spent £30,000 on British aircraft in 1937; it has made 106 crossings. I ask that it should not just be automatically handed over to British Airways, but that it should be given a chance of continuing on its own in the work it has seemed to be doing perfectly satisfactorily.
Let me turn to the question of pilots. The terms of reference of the Cadman Committee contain a statement to the effect that the Secretary of State would value the opinion of the Committee on the question of pilots and victimisation and that that question should be included in their inquiry. The committee did make inquiries, but we have never had any indication of what their findings were. It would be interesting if the Government could make any statement on that point because we have heard a good deal about it. I want to make an appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend on behalf of one of these pilots. I do not wish to say anything about the events of the past, but I want to appeal purely on human grounds to the Air Ministry to consider whether there is not a good case for taking on a man who has rendered such great services to civil aviation as Captain Rogers. What is his case? He was vice-chairman of the British Air Lines Pilots' Association, and he was dismissed by the company in certain circumstances into which I do not wish to go. He has served civil aviation for 17½ years, his flying time is 11,652 hours, and he has made more than 4,000 Channel crossings. He never caused any damage to a passenger whom he carried. Whatever there may have been in the past—there may have been something or there may have been nothing at all—I think that in the interests of the country and of general harmony after this inquiry, the services of such a man should be retained. I appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend to do what he can to consider the possibility of taking him back. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are others."] I ask the same for them, but I happen to know about this particular case.
Then there is the question of the recognition of the British Air Lines Pilots' Association. The Cadman Report says that they must represent a substantial portion of the persons concerned. I understand that they represent over 80

per cent. of the pilots. Surely you do not want anything better than that, and yet we cannot get any statement from the Government or the companies concerned whether they will recognise the association. Are they waiting for the new chairman and directors? It is a matter that seems so clear and definite that I should have thought it would have been quite easy to recognise this association. Is it proposed to follow the example of what happened in the case of the wireless operators, who for eight years were highly organised and were not able to get any recognition? Then they joined the Trades Union Congress and were recognised within 14 days. Have we to wait for that again in the case of the pilots? I hope that we can be given definite information about this and that we can also be told that the Whitley Council is to be set up as soon as circumstances permit.
Reference has been made to the railway ban on certain lines. The hon. Member for Melton gave particulars of the lines concerned. I will not repeat them, except to support his argument. Even in the case of the North Eastern Airways, where the ban has been removed, the terms do not seem to be fair. They are not to fly in the west of England, while railway services are free to fly all over the country, which seems to be rather one-sided. The Cadman Report mentioned a case that was still not settled because of a political aspect. Can we be told what the position of the Government is and what those political aspects are? I understand that the committee refer to the Eire service. I understand that the British Government are now behind the British railway companies in resisting equal treatment for this line. It is certain that the political difficulties did not arise on the side of the Irish Government, and I should like to get some information about this as it has been raised in the Cadman Report.
Irish Sea Airways is a partnership between a British company, West Coast Air Services, Limited, owned by Olley Air Services, Limited, and entirely financed by the private capital of British subjects resident in Great Britain, and Aer Lingus Teoranta, an Irish company, entirely owned and financed by the Irish State. The two companies were selected by their respective Governments and approved by the Government of the other party to be


given exclusive permission to operate the Irish Sea routes, and each of them is, therefore, the chosen instrument of its own Government. Any approval by the British Government of the ban would, therefore, seem to be excluded on the following grounds. First, it would be a breach of the implied undertaking contained in the selection of West Coast Air Services, Limited, as the British component in the Irish Sea operating concern; and, second, it would be a grossly unfriendly act to the government of another country which was impliedly invited to invest public funds in the same concern, an unfriendly act which would be unthinkable in the case of any European government other than that of Ireland. I hope that the Government will make some clear statement where they stand in that matter and what are their reasons for not supporting the Government of Eire and seeing that the railway ban is removed.
I would like to draw attention to a small error in the Cadman Report. It makes reference to evidence given by the Parliamentary Air Committee. That should be the Parliamentary Air Committee of the Conservative party. In the case of railway air services, the pilots and the organisation are run by the Imperial Airways. Is that to be continued, or will there be some change under the new arrangement? With regard to the internal air lines, it is suggested that a subsidy of the nature of £100,000 will probably be all that will be required to keep them going effectively. If nothing is done before long all the independent air lines will be squeezed out. Is that the intention of the Government? Would they welcome a position in which railway air services were the only concern left? I think it would be a very lamentable thing if that were to arise. Reference is made in the Cadman Report to a so-called safeguard, namely, that the Air Ministry if not satisfied can hold an inquiry and make a report. But what is the good of holding an inquiry and making a report to this House if you have no alternative air services in existence? It really gets you nowhere at all. Therefore I think it is very much better to keep the independent services alive by a limited subsidy, such as has been suggested.
In the Cadman Report reference is made to the European services and there is criticism to the effect that mail is

being carried to Switzerland in foreign machines. I am sure it must be known to my hon. Friend that for two years a British line, the Alp Air Line, has been asking the Air Ministry for permission to carry that air mail in British machines, and that it has not been able to get that permission. I should be glad if that point could be cleared up. In the days when Sir Sefton Branckner was responsible for civil aviation there was an international organisation, which I think he started, called the International Air Traffic Association, and at that time we were the recognised leaders in that association. But, owing to the policy of drift that has been pursued since his time, the leadership has gone from this country and the moral leadership certainly is now held by Luft-Hansa. I do hope that, as the result of the report of this committee and of the steps that are being taken, and I hope will be taken, this country will be restored to its rightful position of leader in the air services, both military and civil, of the whole world.

9.27 p.m.

Marquess of Clydesdale: I should like to add my congratulations to the many that have already been offered to Lord Cadman and the members of his committee for their extremely able report. I think that the committee deserves great credit for the speed and efficiency with which it has produced the report. It has finished its job in a matter of three months; its report is precise and very much to the point, and its recommendations, I consider, are good. I wish tonight to bring forward two grievances, which have already been mentioned. The first is the question of booking facilities. In paragraph 75 of the report it is stated:
We have taken evidence on cases of refusal by the Railway Clearing House to afford booking facilities to certain air transport companies. We have ascertained that, with one important exception, this matter has been satisfactorily solved.
Well, that is not the case. The hon. Member for Malton (Mr. Everard) has clearly pointed out that there are five companies which are denied these facilities. Take one, for example—the Allied Air Services. Allied Air Services for the last four years have run a very successful air service up the East Coast of Scotland. They have carried 8,000 passengers and they have run with a high degree of efficiency and safety, which well compares with that of


Railway Air Services. Yet I believe it is the case that no large travel agency can book seats for them. This is no new thing. It has been a very sore point for a great number of years. I understand that practically all large travel agencies have been coerced by threats from the railway companies to refuse the selling of tickets for certain air transport companies, many of whom do not even compete with either of the railway air services, nor can even be said to compete with the railways themselves. What it has meant, in fact, is that the railway companies have been attempting to strangle civil aviation, and they have not even produced a really efficient air service themselves.
It seems a most futile policy from the railway companies' own point of view, for it provides some of the best ammunition for Opposition speakers when they recommend the nationalisation of the railways, for, after all, you are getting all the evils of nationalisation without any of the advantages. I hope that we shall get a clear statement from the Secretary of State for Air that this kind of blackmail will cease. It is laid down clearly in the report, paragraph 74, that the Secretary of State has powers to act. I, personally, accept as entirely satisfactory the Prime Minister's explanation as to why civil aviation has been kept back. The Secretary of State for Air and my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State, have been fully occupied in building up a strong Air Force, and rightly so. I accept that, and I am sure the House accepts it as a satisfactory explanation. But arrangements have now been made and conditions have been changed so that attention can be paid to civil aviation, and I feel that the House should have an assurance that this kind of abuse of a privilege should be put an end to.
My second great grievance is in connection with Allied Air Services, which since last summer have run a service from Newcastle to Norway. They have made 106 crossings. Appendix B of the report consists of a memorandum by the Air Ministry tracing the development of British air lines to the Continent of Europe. Allied Air Lines are not mentioned. I would ask the Minister why there is no mention of this company who run successful services from Newcastle to Norway. In fact, it almost seems an

insult to Norway, whose Government have entrusted the safe conveyance of their mails to this particular air line. I have no interest myself in this air line, but I have a real interest in seeing this country possess a direct service from here to Norway. After all, the most direct service to Norway is across the North Sea, and that would be the most direct service to Helsingfors, Leningrad and Moscow.
After all, a through service to Moscow might possibly be the forerunner of a far more important service between this country and the Pacific. I feel that the Air Ministry should give careful consideration to those firms which have been enterprising enough to run these services. This is the only company which runs direct from Newcastle to Norway. The only other through air service to Scandinavia is efficiently carried out by British Airways, but that service runs through Belgium, Holland and Germany, and in the case of an emergency it might very well have to cease. I should like to ask two questions: First, why was Allied Air Services not mentioned in Appendix B; and, second, does the fact that they are not mentioned in Appendix B mean that they forgo any right to subsidy?
The next subject to which I wish to draw attention is ground control. I do not think the public realise the great importance of efficient ground control in the satisfactory running of air lines. An efficient air line has to sink more money, probably, in ground control arrangements than is spent on the purchase of machines. One might almost make a comparison between railways and air services. It is true that it is not necessary to lay lines for aeroplanes, but in order to carry on a service with real regularity there must be a very elaborate wireless signalling system, with wireless lines, so to speak, along which the machines can fly in bad weather. I have sometimes thought that if only one-tenth of the money sunk in railways had been spent on ground control for civil air lines we should have aeroplanes flying with the same regularity and frequency as trains are running to-day.
The question of aerodromes has already been discussed. I regret that the report recommends that no subsidy should be given to aerodromes. I am not clear how far the development grant will assist aerodromes, and whether in that way they


could be brought up to the requirements of the Maybury Report, but I feel that local authorities have been rather let down. I do not wish to censure either the Air Ministry or any other Government Department, but undoubtedly the Air Ministry have encouraged local authorities for a good many years past to lay aside areas and to spend money upon providing aerodromes, and not only local authorities but various individuals who consider that they know a little about aviation, and in that category I should like to include myself. As an outcome of that local authorities have spent a good deal of money on aerodrome sites.
I quote the case of a local authority in my own constituency. The burgh of Renfrew a few years ago, by arrangement with the Air Ministry, obtained the Renfrew aerodrome as a civil aerodrome. They spent £10,000 on improving that aerodrome, and are now spending annually between £300 and £500 on improvements. Even now Renfrew is far from being a really first-class aerodrome, but I believe it could be made one if developments were carried out on a big enough scale. I cite that as one case, and I hope the Air Ministry will really consider the position of local authorities in this matter. In most cases the local authorities can see no return for the money they have spent upon aerodromes. One municipal aerodrome that pays only does so because a Government contract has been obtained for the use of the aerodrome for the training of pilots.
The present position of civil aviation rather emphasises the tragedy that has made it necessary for this country to rearm on such a tremendous scale. Last year the Air Estimates stood at the figure of £88,000,000, out of which £2,000,000 was spent on civil aviation. This year the Air Estimates amount to over £100,000,000, and some £3,000,000 is being spent on the civil side. That huge expenditure on the military side is necessary owing to the deplorable state of Europe, but if the situation made it possible to spend only half that sum on civil aviation what a tremendous advantage it would be to this country and to the rest of the world. I am delighted that the Government have appreciated the importance of not separating the military and civil aspects of aviation. No doubt it will be desirable ultimately

that civil and military aviation should be under separate Government Departments, in much the same way as the Royal Navy and the merchant service are, but at the present juncture the more collaboration we can get between the two the better.
I was very much interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Melton said about the training of pilots; and reference has been made to a citizen air force. I feel that a great deal more could be done along those lines, and I cannot help thinking that one reason why the Air Ministry has not got ahead with the problem is the fact that there has been no scarcity of pilots. Any gibe from abroad about a lack of recruits cannot be directed against the Royal Air Force, because the position so far as they are concerned is satisfactory, but the whole scheme of training pilots in this country ought to be made the subject of a survey. We have those who are flying in the Royal Air Force, those in the Air Force Volunteer Reserve, the members of flying clubs and other civilians who are flying in this country in various capacities. All the facilities should be surveyed, and the pilots who are flying in various capacities should be co-ordinated so as to get better results. I feel confident that if this matter were taken in hand properly far more pilots would be available. One could say a great deal on the subject of co-operation between the military side and the civil side. I do not propose to comment upon the changes in the Air Ministry, but I believe that the closer the cooperation between the military and the civil aspects, the stronger we shall be in the air.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Muff: One fact which emerges from the Debate is that if the Whips were not put on the Amendment of my right hon. Friend would be carried. I agree with the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) that we welcome the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in his new duties. While we cannot expect him to bring to those duties the vitality which he brought here when he was the baby of the House we expect him to bring that flair and imagination to the Air Ministry which he showed when he was associated with Lawrence in Arabia.
I want to ask the Government to announce some policy this evening with regard to municipal aerodromes. The


Debate is concerned with civil aviation, but I wish to concentrate my remarks upon the internal civil aviation of this country. You cannot have civil aviation if you do not have municipal aerodromes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Major Milner) has mentioned what is known as the Yeadon Aerodrome, for Leeds and Bradford. I was a member of the Bradford Corporation when the resolution was passed to support His Majesty's Government by being a pioneer in the formation of a municipal aerodrome. I should say that it was on record as about the only time that Leeds and Bradford were in co-operation together on any project whatever. The fact remains that there is a municipal aerodrome. When we ask the Government for a grant they give us night-flying lights, or something of that description. The only possible night flying at the Yeadon aerodrome was done by the Noble Lord the Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale) who patronised the aerodrome on his way to Scotland.
Another municipal authority which was prior even to the West Riding authorities in pioneering municipal aerodromes was the City of Hull. About a week ago the Hull Corporation were presented with an ultimatum that the only internal aviation company using that aerodrome was no longer going to use it. Hull, through its development committee and the progressive ideas of men of all parties in the city, built up a pioneer aerodrome. It was even able to interest the Dutch Air Liners sufficiently for them to make it a port of call. At the present time, Hull and similar places are in danger of being left in the air, except for some facilities offered to local people to use it for pleasure purposes, and the corporation will be landed, after engaging in heavy expenditure at the direct invitation of the Government. They have invested money in this unwanted thing, which now appears to be nobody's darling.
I have got up this evening to appeal to the Government and to the Under-Secretary for co-operation. There is now, with Lord Swinton, a trinity. I appeal to them to tell the municipal authorities exactly what to do. Although it has a rate of 19s. 10d. in the £, after cutting 1s. off the estimates, although it is a distressed area and is trying to support the Government in a public spirited way,

Hull is an example of what is happening to many great local authorities. The municipal authorities of the country have a right to ask—I do not like to use the word "demand"—

Mr. Holdsworth: Why not?

Mr. Muff: Because I am most moderate in my language, and I will put this matter in the form of an appeal. I want to put it in the way most pleasing to His Majesty's Government and to ask them to come to the rescue of the municipal authorities or to tell them frankly to go out of existence. I want to tell the Government that this country is by no means air-minded, and that the majority of us have the jitters at the very idea of flying in the air. If the people of this country are expected to become air-minded and to get into an aeroplane as they would get into a motor car, the way to encourage them and to develop air-mindedness is through municipal aerodromes.
What is the alternative? Where are you to land your aeroplanes for any sort of civil aviation? I am glad of this opportunity of asking the Government whether they have a policy, and not to be so self-complacent. They have been the cause of municipal authorities building a millstone of debt and we are entitled to ask the Noble Lord and his colleague to help them to liquidate that debt, or to say that it is a bad debt, and that they are going to leave us stranded

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I believe that the whole House will feel that the discussion that we have had upon the issues raised by the Cadman Report has been productive of much good. With other hon. Members I should like to join in expressing appreciation of the vigour and courage showed by Lord Cadman and his colleagues in the report which they have presented to us. Now that we are approaching the end of the discussion I wonder whether any Member in any part of the House does not share the sentiment expressed in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which says that the explanations and proposals of His Majesty's Government
cannot be regarded as adequate to allay public concern.
I think that the disquiet which has been expressed in the course of the discussion


is merely a reflection of the concern that is felt among the general public outside, whom we all represent in this House.
One fact which seems to me to emerge from the discussion is that civil aviation has not been encouraged to the degree that it ought to have been. I feel that that view has been accepted by most speakers, though all would not, perhaps, accept it on the same grounds. The reason generally advanced by the Government might, I think, fairly be stated in this way: The Government say that, by reason of the conditions which have presented themselves in the last two or three years, there has been concentration upon military aviation, and that, therefore, civil aviation must necessarily have suffered to some extent. I think that that is probably true as regards the last two or three years, but I wonder if it is the real reason why civil aviation has not progressed more than it has. I make bold to say that in my judgment there has been a deplorable lack of vision. Military aviation will not last for ever—let us hope so, anyway. There will come a time when we shall be returning to more peaceful avocations than we are now called upon to engage in; the call for military equipment will therefore decline; but civil aviation will still remain; and it seems to me that the failure to keep these facts in mind does disclose a lack of vision.
I believe it cannot be controverted that there has been no lack of firms with the will and initiative to work in the field of civil aviation; that, I think, has been proved from all quarters of the House. What has happened to those firms who have been willing to work in that field? They have either been compelled to give up altogether or they have had to restrict their operations so far as civil aircraft programmes were concerned; and those who have saved themselves have had to concentrate on Air Ministry work, mainly as sub-contractors to what are called "ring" firms. I shall venture to say one or two things that may, perhaps, seem somewhat severe, and I hope that the House will forgive me for doing so. It is even alleged that firms willing to back their judgment by spending their own money on producing liners of a modern type have actually been thwarted by the Ministry in the course of the last few years. I will take a case in point.
References have been made to British Airways in the course of the Debate this evening and on the previous occasion. I believe it to be true that an international agreement was arrived at some years ago for running a passenger and airway service to Scandinavia, and one of the conditions of that agreement was that the service was to start on a certain day. If the service did not start on that day, the agreement, I understand, was to lapse. The service was to be run by British Airways. A curious thing that emerges is that the Ministry does not seem to have satisfied itself that the British aircraft industry could provide the necessary fleet by that date; actually, I understand, it would have required four months beyond the stipulated date. Keeping that agreement in mind, and the fact that an extra four months was necessary, I have been given this information, which I pass on to the House as being a statement of the truth.
An aircraft called "Croydon" was produced, and I understand it is claimed to be comparable in every way with the "Lockheed Electra," an American machine. This American machine, I may add, was subsequently bought by British Airways. The constructors of the "Croydon" tried hard to interest British Airways, and also Imperial Airways, in their machine, but from both companies they were met with a blank refusal. When the agreement between the Government and the Scandinavian countries had been concluded, the manufacturers of the "Croydon," I am informed, again approached British Airways. The agreement had now been decided upon, and, for the second time at least, an approach was made to British Airways. Two answers were given on this occasion, and I ask the House to note them. The first answer said that the aircraft, if taken, must be delivered within four and a-half months. I understand that that was a wholly impossible demand, but, in reply to that demand, the constructors offered to deliver in from eight to nine months. The machine was actually designed, produced and flown in 10 months, so that the guarantee to produce in nine months was no light guarantee. The second answer was that, as the "Croydon" machine had not been used on any other air line, British Airways could not purchase it even if it were ready.
These facts surely lead to this observation: British Airways, after all, is a subsidised British air line, and it is a not unfair deduction that it preferred to buy foreign equipment, thus damaging the prestige of the British aircraft industry. Actually, by the time this answer was given, the "Croydon," I understand, had been tested and flown with a full load to Australia. I must follow this up a little further, because it is rather interesting and leads to a conclusion which I shall draw presently. When this situation had developed, the matter was taken up with the Director-General of Civil Aviation, and it was urged that, if an American aircraft was used on a British subsidised air line, irreparable damage would be done to British interests—a quite legitimate point to make.
Secondly, they urged that, as a result of a flight to Australia, they had already had inquiries, both from Australia and New Zealand, about this machine, but that the use, or buying, of an American machine necessarily must damage the prestige of the British firm. The Director-General was extremely sympathetic, I understand, but had to urge this agreement to which I have referred, and I am told that the firm that built the "Croydon" machine had to see possible business with other countries entirely disappear, because of the extra prestige which was added to the American machine. These are serious allegations, and it is very hard, if there be any substratum of truth attached to them, to understand how this situation could have been allowed to develop. In relation to that, let me quote the observations of Lord Swinton in another place. He said:
It was a misfortune when we began to subsidise another British air line that though they started originally with British machines—and I think they have some still—there were not suitable British machines available.
He was quoting Lord Sempill, and he said:
I agree. But the provision of aircraft must be chiefly the responsibility of the aircraft industry.
Thus we see how the Air Ministry has failed, if the facts are as I say, to support the British aircraft industry.

Mrs. Tate: The hon. Member has said that British aircraft were available. I think he will agree that no air line can

run with one aeroplane. He has not said how many British aircraft were available. I maintain that whereas four American machines were used, only one British machine was available.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I told the hon. Lady earlier that it took about nine months to provide the necessary fleet. However, it is of little use deploring the past. The question now arises, Do the Government really accept the Cadman Report? The Prime Minister announced that he has already taken certain steps, some of which have given us great pleasure on personal grounds. I understand that, broadly speaking, it may be said that America predominates in the supply of air liners in the world, in the overseas Empire as well as in the foreign markets. I am told that in the last three years, for instance, the Americans have produced and sold abroad over 260 air liners of modern type. British manufacturers, I believe, have not sold one abroad. Whatever our views may be as to the efficiency or otherwise of the Air Ministry, we all must deplore that, if it be a fact. The problem, therefore, is, What are we to do in order to enable us to overcome this extraordinary contrast between the achievements of the aircraft industries of other countries and of our own? Paragraph 50 of the Cadman Report says:
Other countries have gained the initiative in civil aircraft construction and British constructors, with lucrative military orders ready at their doors, have shown little disposition to embark upon the costly venture of producing civil machines in a speculative attempt to re-enter the lists. Without prospective orders they cannot, in particular, bear the heavy initial expense which must be incurred before manufacture can commence. Construction thus waits upon demand, which it must itself create—a vicious circle.
There is the problem quite clearly and succinctly stated by the committee. What does the Secretary of State for Air say on this matter? In another place he used these words:
Nobody would contend that the Government should so subsidise the aircraft industry that it can supply civil aircraft on a competitive basis.
Clearly, Lord Swinton rules out subsidising aircraft to compete successfully on a competitive basis. But that is not the view of the Cadman Committee. In paragraph 57, they say:
The State assistance to the construction industry which we have suggested in the


previous paragraph should be a reasonable supplement to commercial enterprise and should enable aircraft of an advanced design to be offered at prices competitive with those of foreign make.
I find it difficult to believe that, apart from certain changes which the Prime Minister announced a week or a fortnight ago, the Minister, even now, accepts some of the fundamental proposals of the report. I find little evidence that the Government are prepared to accept the proposals contained in paragraphs 55–9. I turn again to an observation made by Lord Swinton in another place. He says:
The making and selling of aircraft must be primarily the responsibility of the aircraft industry. That industry has been tremendously occupied with military orders.
Up to a point, that is true, but it is not the whole truth, I think. There have been, and I believe there are still, firms willing to engage in civil aircraft construction, but they cannot get orders for air liners, and they have to be sub-contractors to what is called the ring. I ask the Noble Lord or the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is to reply to-night, this question quite categorically. Is the Ministry determined that none shall do air construction work except some 19 firms? Is civil aviation, or any other aviation for that matter, but chiefly civil aviation, to remain the subject of a closed corporation? Lord Swinton obviously anticipated a question such as that and referred to a machine called the "Albatross." He says:
The 'Albatross' which is flying to-day, and which I hope will be a very useful machine and will be used by civil lines, was ordered by the Air Ministry in the programme we are carrying out now with the aircraft industry, and after consultation with the air line operators.
If Lord Swinton claims that the "Albatross" is a proof that there is no abandonment of civil aviation or interest in it, may I ask this question? Is it a fact that the "Albatross" has proved so very satisfactory? Will British Airways, or will anyone on behalf of British Airways in this House to-night, say that British Airways themselves regard it as a satisfactory machine? Has there not been difficulty already experienced with that machine, and is it not the fact that the "Albatross" is not an all-metal stressed skin type? As a matter of fact, is it not also true that the constructors of the "Albatross" machine themselves are at this moment turning their attention to

the all-metal stressed skin type itself? Lord Swinton tells us further:
We are developing medium machines of the kind which we hope will be useful to air' line companies. Further development work of much larger machines is being put in hand.
May I ask this question? Have these been placed out to competition? Have they been placed as the result of a competitive tender, and if not, how are the manufacturers selected? I dwell for a minute on this for another reason. I do not see present any colleagues of mine who are upon the Public Accounts Committee, but on the Air Ministry Accounts in 1925 the Public Accounts Committee—I was not a Member of it then—made a very sharp observation on the question of prices and the control of prices. I can go further and say that during my chairmanship of it, in 1934, again in 1936, and to a lesser degree last year, the Public Accounts Committee has—and after all it is one of the watch-dogs of finance on behalf of this House—repeatedly indicated, not to put it too highly, its sense of disquiet over the machinery that is in operation for controlling prices which are paid for these various air machines. In so far as competition can be secured, surely it is right that competitive tenders should be asked for whenever possible.
I would ask another question, and I cite this as a curious illustration of the way in which things seem to be done. In January, 1937, General Aircraft, in conjunction with two other companies, quoted Imperial Airways for certain new types of machines. In spite of repeated attempts to find out the position, nothing has been heard of these tenders since January, 1937. Again, in July, 1937. five civil air line manufacturers were asked to quote for a special type of machine. Has anything happened in regard to that? I understand that the firms concerned have heard not one single word. These things give one a sense of disquiet. They make one feel uneasy. One has an uncomfortable feeling that the whole business of aircraft manufacture is being shepherded on behalf of a limited number of firms. It cannot be argued that the firms who tender for some of these machines are entirely inexperienced or specially inexperienced, for Lord Swinton said in that same speech:


They had to make entirely new types of machines. They had little or no experience, for instance, of low-wing skin-dressed monoplanes.
Seeing, therefore, that they had to start from scratch, it was surely possible to ask for tenders from a wider field. The Prime Minister also said the same thing in other words. He said:
When we had to start almost from the beginning; when we had to deal with new designs which were so different from the old ones that they might be said to have been new inventions rather than developments of existing types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1938; col. 256, Vol. 333.]
These facts show that it ought to have been possible for all kinds of firms interested in these kinds of machines to tender, since none could claim that they had any special prior experience to guide them. I would submit to the Government that it is a dangerous thing to build up a monopoly in the hands of a limited number of firms. One day, perhaps, when we have got rid of this military obsession and we have returned to a consideration of civil aviation in a calmer atmosphere, we shall have to pay dearly for this virtual monopoly which has been built up in the course of the last few years.
Let me turn to another side of this problem, which has been raised by the Cadman Committee, namely, the question of aerodromes. I will not dwell upon it, because the point has already been adequately made; but the Government seem to take the view that the development, the maintenance and the control of aerodromes is a responsibility of the municipalities themselves. That is exceedingly unfair and very unjust to many local authorities. Take the one mentioned by the Noble Lord opposite, the aerodromes at Renfrew. I do not know Renfrew as a town, but it cannot be a very big municipality. That town has taken on a very big financial expenditure and have locked up a substantial sum of municipal money in it. The Government say to them: "That is your business," and they leave them high and dry and offer them no assistance. As far as I can see, in the case of many of these aerodromes there is no hope whatever of diverting this substantial sum of money invested in aerodromes into useful channels in connection with aviation itself. If we are going to allow municipalities to build

aerodromes here, there and everywhere, without any plan, or scheme or design, we shall be overtaken with the same problem as has overtaken us in regard to the roads in the country. Now is the time for building a well-considered national system of aerodromes, and in order to do that they should be nationally handled and I submit nationally supported and financed.
The Under-Secretary of State has made two speeches recently and has welcomed whole heartedly the appointment of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, who is called the Independent Executive Chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. I know nothing about Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner. He may be a most excellent gentleman, and I make no reflection upon him personally. But I am interested none the less in the appointment. I understand that there are 157 firms in this society, and that 19 belong to what is called "the ring." I understand that Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner was appointed by the 19 voting for him. What about the rest of the firms? Were they consulted? Were they asked to vote? Were they asked for their opinion? Did they know about it? I believe the truth is that they did not know until the Press announcement was made. Nineteen firms voted, and no more. The others had an assurance, so I understand. They have been informed that they are not going to be charged either by increased subscriptions or otherwise for Sir Charles' salary. Is it true that Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's salary is to be provided by the Government? The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. I will put the question in another way. Is Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's salary to be allowed as a charge against profits? It is important that we should know, because he is called the independent chairman. Independent of whom? Is he independent of the 19 firms? He is clearly independent of the rest. In the Government's observations on the Cadman Report it says that the Minister will be in close consultation with Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, the Independent Chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors:
Who have been appointed by the aircraft industry to represent the interests of the industry as a whole.
But only 19 voted for him. The rest did not know about it. How can you say that this gentleman speaks for the in-


dustry as a whole? I submit that the remuneration and the allegiance of this gentleman remain rather a mystery. It is important that this matter should be cleared up, because certainly there are rumours that the salary of this gentleman will be provided from Government sources. In conclusion I can say that my hon. Friends take the view expressed in the Minority Report of the Gorell Committee, in which it was stated:
We look upon it as imperative that the whole of Civil Aviation be taken away immediately from all connection with the Air Ministry, and placed, like other normal forms of transport, under an appropriate Minister, divorced entirely from the war complex, preferably the Minister of Transport.
When these difficult times have passed, we shall still be left with the problem of organising civil aviation in this country. As one who has seen civil aviation in a limited way on the great Continent of America, I must express the view that, whatever the differences may be, whether favourable to the American position with regard to internal avaiation or to our own, the time has come when we should register a grim determination to develop our civil aviation so that the twentieth century in England shall not be unlike the twentieth century in the most progressive countries in the world.

10.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I speak again by leave of the House. As a considerable number of the questions that have been raised to-day were raised when the first half of this Debate took place, no doubt the House will forgive me if I give similar answers on a number of points to those which I gave then. I will try, in the words of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), both to be modest and to put my points in the best possible way. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised a number of points in connection with the aircraft industry, particularly concerning the methods which should be adopted in the production of civil aircraft. The question of competitive tenders for designs for future civil aircraft is still under consideration, but the hon. Member and the whole House may be assured that the intention of the Government is to try to obtain from the industry the very best designs and the very best construction that the industry of this

country can produce. It is true that proposals for a medium type have been invited from a number of aircraft manufacturers, many of them from what I might call non-family firms. The position is that only one of those designs is actually in production. I hope the fact that proposals have been asked from a number of non-family firms will satisfy the hon. Member that there is no desire on the part of the Government to stifle the industry in producing the best possible designs and construction.
The hon. Member then returned again—as many hon. Members have done in the course of the Debate—to the appointment of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner. The hon. Member asked me in what respect was Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner independent. I explained that the other day when I said that he was independent of any of the aircraft manufacturing companies. The previous chairman of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors was Mr. Handley Page. He was actively connected with the well-known firm which bears his name. He now occupies the position of president of the society and his place has been taken by Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner, who, as I say, is independent of any aircraft manufacturing concern, whether it is as the hon. Member would probably be put, "in the family" or not.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Am I to take it that he is performing his task without any remuneration?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, he is not, nor is there any reason why he should. I have explained exactly wherein he is independent. He is not independent of any financial consideration but he is independent of the management of any particular firm. Mr. Handley Page whom he succeeded, was head of a well-known firm. By no conceivable method of argument can Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner be held to be in a position similar to that held by Mr. Handley Page.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I understand that Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner now holds no directorates and is not officially connected with any firm, but that he acts as an independent chairman over this group in return for which he receives a salary voted, I take it, by these 19 firms. Is that so?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: With regard to the question of his remuneration that is a matter for the industry. The hon. Member seems to be annoyed that anybody with a great deal of experience and a great deal of knowledge of this particular job, should receive any remuneration for it. I hope I have explained adequately what is the independence of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's position.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not a fact that he was appointed by a limited number of firms; that only a limited number of firms have any power of voting; that this is not a real society of aircraft manufacturers, taking in all the aircraft manufacturers, but that only a small ring have votes, and that actually the terms of voting were altered recently to keep out any of the other firms?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should necessarily raise this point because in place of the previous chairman, who was connected with a particular firm, there has been appointed a chairman who is not connected with any firm. That is the change which has taken place and I cannot see how, by any force of argument, objection can be taken to that particular change in these particular circumstances.

Mr. Attlee: But is it not the case that Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner has been appointed by only 19 firms out of 157?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There is a difference between the position now and the position when he took this place, and what I am trying to answer is the particular point raised by the hon. Member for Caerphilly who asked me wherein Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's independence lay. I believe the House will agree that I have shown clearly that whereas the previous chairman was the head of a well-known aeroplane construction firm, Sir Charles does not occupy any such position. That is where his independence lies. I think his appointment is recognised to be satisfactory, not merely from the point of view of the industry but from the point of view of the Government and because one gets that combination of fortunate circumstances there is no reason why those other points should necessarily be raised. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is no answer."] The answer which I have given may not be the answer which the right hon. Gentleman wants,

but I think it is a perfectly good answer with regard to Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's independence. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Caerphilly have made their speeches. I did not try to make their speeches for them, and I think they might accept what I consider to be this perfectly adequate explanation as to the independence of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner's position. The hon. Member for Caerphilly raised the question of the "Croydon" aircraft. That aircraft, was not, in point of fact, lent, as I think he himself recognised, and its employment would have meant suspending the service of British Airways for some months. That suspension could not have taken place, and at the time, I think, the House was fully informed of the circumstances under which the foreign aircraft was ordered.
The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) led off with a number of points, and he was subsequently followed by other speakers. He told us a very interesting detail of his early life, namely, that he had travelled in one of the first halt-dozen motor cars in this country. If I remember aright, in the days of the first half-dozen motor cars they had to be preceded by a man with a red flag. I only mention that, of course, as a matter of historical interest. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned that nothing had been said about home civil aviation, but I think that point was adequately answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard), when he said that most of those questions had been covered by the Maybury Committee and, therefore, lay outside the purview of the Cadman Committee.
A number of hon. Members have raised the old and often proffered argument about the subsidisation of aerodromes, but I think he was wrong when he said that aerodromes were constructed under pressure. He was quite right in saying that the Government encouraged them, but I think he would give a wrong impression which I have no doubt he did not want to do in saying that they were constructed under pressure. I do not know whether the House is aware of the amount of money which goes, directly or indirectly, into a great many of these aerodromes, though I do not suggest that it covers all of them. There are the questions of provision and maintenance, training of Royal Air Force personnel at civil


training schools, £800,000 a year; training of reserve and volunteer reserve personnel at civil training schools, nearly £1,000,000 a year; the accommodation of Auxiliary Air Force and other services at civil aerodromes, which the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) mentioned; there are the grants to light aeroplane clubs. The contribution is not yet determined, it is true, but is in the offing, towards the cost of night lighting of civil aerodromes. Those, it is true, are not anything in the way of direct payments to aerodromes, but in so far as they are money which goes towards the upkeep of clubs, the training of reserve pilots, or something like that, they do redound in the end to the interests of civil aviation. If you put them together, you get a recurring figure of over £2,000,000 a year.

Mr. Muff: How much does Hull or Yeadon get out of that £2,000,000?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot give the figures on the spur of the moment.

Mr. Muff: A crumb.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: But I shall be most happy to look out the figures for the hon. Member and let him have them. The hon. Member for South Bradford was pluming himself the other day on the fact that he had got an extremely good bargain.

Mr. Holdsworth: No.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: On the question of the subsidisation of internal lines, I do not think anybody can really argue that the position is quite the same as between internal lines and overseas lines. After all, with the overseas lines, it is not a question of competition between one national interest and another within the same nation. It is a question of competition between the aircraft of this nation and the aircraft of other nations, which latter are being heavily subsidised. We are attempting to meet some of the difficulties of internal air lines by the proposed licensing system which was recommended by the Maybury Committee. The Draft Order for the licensing system is in a very advanced stage, and I hope before long to be able to lay it before the House. There are hon. Members who say, not without reason, that the licensing system is not the same as a subsidy, but we realise the difficulties which internal air

lines are suffering from and we are doing our best to sort out what is a very difficult situation. Many hon. Members referred to the question of training pilots. Although it was recognised that the training of pilots for war service was largely a question of the flying of service aircraft, our interest in flying clubs is shown by the fact that recently the financial grant of these clubs has been advanced. We have increased the limit from £1,500 to £2,000 per club, we have abolished half rates for a figure of 1,200 and under, and have given 10s. per hour up to 20 hours flying per annum. That may not satisfy some hon. Members, but it is a substantial index of the importance that we attach to flying clubs.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: Is the Air Ministry satisfied that they are training enough pilots?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I dealt with that point. The hon. and gallant Member raised it in the first half of this Debate, and I dealt then with the numbers of pilots who have passed into the Royal Air Force in the course of the past three years or so and with the fact that we were making provision for the training of people in actual flying for service purposes in the Volunteer Reserve. While emphasising the need for training pilots in the use of service aircraft, I indicated that we were assisting people right from the start in civil flying clubs and that we showed our interest by the increased financial grants that have been made. The hon. Member for Melton, after crying down what he thought was the meagre sum of £1,500,000 for 17 years, hoped that the increased grant which had been promised as a result of the Cadman report would be put through this Session. That increased grant amounts to £3,000,000. The hon. Member is quite right, knowing the changes and chances of political life, in suggesting that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but I think he may rest assured that, short of any unforeseen political accident the subsidy arrangements will be got through in time to be effective. Then the question of booking facilities came up, and the hon. Member for Melton said that in the previous Debate I had said that the whole matter was cleared up except for one outstanding instance. What I said was that the Cadman report had said that. I did admit that in the case, for instance,


of Allied Airways, there was, because of their service, another outstanding instance. I have looked into the various instances that the hon. Member for Melton raised. Olley Air Services is an Irish company, and, as I said in my previous speech, hon. Members must realise that where you are dealing with an air line running to a country like Ireland there must necessarily be political factors which do not exist in the case of a purely internal air line.

Mr. Mander: What has the Isle of Wight got to do with Eire?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Some of the Isle of Wight services are connected with the Olley Air Services. An hon. Member raised the question of the Portsmouth and Isle of Wight Services. I am assured by the Southern Railway that they are able and willing to book for this particular service. In regard to Allied Airways and Orkney and Shetland, I have never tried to gloss over that, but although that is an outstanding case I hope very much that in the course of negotiations that matter may be resolved.

Mr. Mander: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman mind dealing specifically with the case of Eire mentioned in the Cadman report? What is the objection to removing the ban?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I think it is not unnatural that there may be questions between this country and Eire which do not exist in the case of an internal line. I can only assure the hon. Member that the question of railway bookings is not one which is being allowed to slide. It is one in which a great deal of active interest is being taken by those concerned. I should like to give an instance of how progress is being made in this particular question. Take the case of North Eastern Airways. That was an outstanding case not long ago. That case has now been resolved. I do not suggest that one swallow necessarily makes a summer, but I think at all events that that will satisfy hon. Members that progress is being made. It is not in the same position as it was several months ago.

Mr. Holdsworth: This point has been raised by practically every Member in the

Debate. Are the Government doing anything to bring pressure to bear on the railways? That is what we want to know. You are asking us to pass a report. What are you doing to implement what is said in it?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have quoted North Eastern Airways as an instance, and I am entitled to do that because it is suggested that no progress has been made for a long period. There you have an outstanding case which has now been resolved. However keenly hon. Members may feel on this subject they may take that as an earnest of the interest that is being taken by all concerned and of the progress that is actually being made.

Marquess of Clydesdale: The Minister stated that the service along the East Coast of Scotland was under review. May I ask whether the service to Norway is also to be taken into consideration?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That has been settled satisfactorily. In the case of Allied Airways matters are only outstanding in respect of the northern service to Orkney and Shetland.

Marquess of Clydesdale: Do I understand that bookings for the service to Norway can be effected at all travelling agencies? I was under the impression that that was not the case.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think I am right in saying that in the case of Allied Airways service to Norway it has been satisfactorily settled, and that the only outstanding case is the service to Orkney and Shetland. The hon. Member for Melton seemed rather to scoff at the idea that there were any suggestions of facilities for night flying. I would put this point: One does not want to have a vicious circle, that is to say no night services because there are no night flying facilities, and no night flying facilities because there are no night services, and if the Government take steps to implement that particular recommendation in the report and provide some facilities for night flying they will have gone a considerable way to breaking the vicious circle. In reference to another question which he raised, the Air Cadet Corps are a voluntary organisation on the same lines as the Sea Cadet Corps.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) indulged in a


rather interesting general political review. He forecast with a great deal of assurance the time when every Member of this House except himself might be in the Government. I am afraid that some of his immediate neighbours visibly winced at that forecast, but I thought that with the prospect of odds of 614 to 1 against him he still managed to remain remarkable cheerful. He also raised a question which is very dear to his heart, and that is the reinstatement of the dismissed pilots. As I have stated before in this House, that is a question which the Government consider is primarily one for the company concerned, but I want to make it plain that both through the agency of the Government directors and also as a matter of general policy it is not one with which the Government can be unconcerned. Very early in the history of that question my Noble Friend was careful to assure himself, through the Government directors, that there had been no question of victimisation. The Government clearly had to satisfy themselves on that matter, and my Noble Friend was careful to do so through the medium of the Government directors, one of whom is a very distinguished Marshal of the Air Force.

Mr. Montague: Why should they be dismissed without any explanation whatever? They included some distinguished pilots.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not at all satisfied that they were dismissed without an explanation being given to them.

Mr. Lyons: Can the hon. and gallant Member say what the explanation was?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The question is whether there was any victimisation.

Mr. Lyons: Could not my hon. and gallant Friend give the reasons for the dismissal of these very distinguished pilots so that the House could judge for itself?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am not prepared to do that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not? "] After all, this is a matter between a company and its employés.

Mr. Holdsworth: You cannot treat a subsidised company like that.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: That is exactly why my Noble Friend, through the medium of the Government directors,

satisfied himself that there was no question of victimisation. That disposes of one of the chief charges that have been made.

Mr. Mander: Did they see the pilots themselves?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: They satisfied themselves.

An Hon. Member: They were easily satisfied.

Mr. Perkins: Did they take the trouble to hear the pilots' case from the pilots themselves before they made their decision?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think my Noble Friend was quite justified in taking the word of the Government directors.

Mr. Lyons: Are not the directors of the company interested persons?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: These were Government directors, and when I say that one of them is such a man as Marshal of the Royal Air Force with wide practical experience of flying, I think hon. Members will agree that my Noble Friend was justified in taking his word.

Mr. Montague: Before the Under-Secretary leaves that point—

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am afraid I cannot give way any more. [Interruption.]

Mr. Montague: I would like to put to the Under-Secretary the point that one of these three distinguished pilots was one of the only two men in the whole world possessing both the land and marine certificates. They were given the sack. They were told they were redundant, and that was the only thing they were told. They never had a chance of putting any case at all. Nevertheless the company actually engaged new pilots and they have engaged large numbers of pilots since that time. It is not sufficient for us to be told that the Under-Secretary is satisfied with the statement of a very high official. The House of Commons needs to know something of what has happened. This company is highly subsidised and these men are pilots whose characters cannot be impugned. They are suffering under a very great grievance and the grievance, at least to some extent, ought to be dealt with by the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The House of Commons is fully entitled to be assured that the pilots were dismissed in what one might call the ordinary way of' commercial business. The hon. Member has in mind the circumstances of the complaint, which was that the pilots were dismissed because of their association with a particular organisation, that is the whole gravamen of a particular charge. It is quite true that it was—

Mr. Montague: I am not satisfied about that—

Lieut.-Colenel Muirhead: —a charge of which the Government must be cognisant and my Noble Friend fully realised the particular reason of the charge about which he satisfied himself.

Miss Wilkinson: Why did he not hear the pilots?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I think the House is aware of the original charge made in respect of those pilots and fully realises that my Noble Friend took the charge—

Miss Wilkinson: You do not believe this yourself, really.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The next question which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton raised—

Mr. Jagger: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman going on, without telling us why the pilots were dimissed?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: —was the recognition of the British Air Line Pilots' Association. Let me remind the House that the Cadman Committee made a recommendation in favour of collective representation, but did not make a recommendation in favour of any particular form of collective representation. Though I agree that they made some reference to a Whitley Council, they did not recommend any particular form of organisation, nor did they recomemnd the recognition of any particular body. The Government have quite clearly accepted the recommendation that effect should be given to collective representation, and in regard to that recommendation the Government, in the case of the two companies on which they have directors, are sincerely determined that collective representation in Some form or other shall be put into operation.

Miss Wilkinson: Will there be any guarantee, after other pilots are taken on, that these two men's case will be reconsidered, if redundancy is the only thing that is held against them?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I would not like to give any pledge to the House on that point. The House, I think, will realise that I have received in the course of the last 10 minutes a considerable amount of criticism from one quarter and another, and I would not like to try to reduce that by giving a pledge to the hon. Lady which I do not at the moment feel that I can justifiably give. I repeat again that the question whether these pilots were wrongfully dismissed or were in any way victimised is a question of which the. Government must take cognisance.
Another point that was made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton was with regard to the carriage of mails in a machine that was not a British machine. I understand that an application was made by the line to which he referred, but that, so far, permission has not yet been obtained from the Swiss Government. Of course, in connection with the Cadman Report, the recommendation about the operation of European air lines, and the whole question of what lines actually run, will be reconsidered by the Government. That brings me, on the question of European lines, to the question raised by the Noble Lord the Member for East Renfrew (Marquess of Clydesdale) on the subject of Allied Airways and the fact that they were not mentioned in the Government's observations on the Cadman Report. The service to Norway was only run for a short period, between July and September, 1937, and I think that the Government were justified in considering that that was only a temporary service.

Marquess of Clydesdale: I understand that Allied Air Lines have a contract for five years with the Norwegian Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think the Noble. Lord will deny that the service was interrupted and not resumed, and that was the reason. There was no question of trying to discriminate against any particular company.

Marquess of Clydesdale: May I ask for an answer to my simple question: Is the company barred from being considered for a subsidy because it was not mentioned?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I assure the Noble Lord that I had no intention of shirking his second question, but that, if he had given me a little more time, I was coming to it. I was merely saying, on the first point, that there were obvious reasons why the Government did not actually include the name of this company in their observations. There was no question of deliberately leaving them out. There is no intention to disturb the proposal for the running of this service next summer. On the question of whether they will get a subsidy for these services or not, I could not give an answer to the Noble Lord.

Marquess of Clydesdale: Are they barred?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, they are not barred. It is quite clear that you have to consider, in connection with this company, the recommendations of the Cadman Committee. It is in respect of these particular recommendations that the whole question of the European services is being considered. I would ask the Noble Lord not to try to read more or less into my answer than it appears to convey.

Marquess of Clydesdale: Might I have an undertaking that this line will be considered fairly on the same basis as other lines?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: There is no question of the line not being considered fairly. I gather that what the Noble Lord is really anxious is that I should give an assurance that it will get the subsidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I think the Noble Lord and I are at one. The next point was that there should be no intention of disturbing this particular line from running a service next summer. The Noble Lord may rest assured that this company and all other companies will be fairly considered in connection with this scheme for the European services as a whole. I hope the Noble Lord, who is naturally anxious on behalf of the company, now feels that I have answered his questions.
Now with some difficulty, I think I have got through substantially the particular

points which were raised. I am sure that hon. Members, on reflection, will sympathise with me in having, so to speak, to wind up the same Debate twice. I had to make a concluding speech some ten days ago, and I have to do so tonight. Having in my previous remarks dealt with what I might call the general considerations of the case, I may be forgiven by the House if I recapitulate them. This committee was set up to consider not the whole range of civil aviation, but certain specific allegations made during a particular Debate. It is quite true that my Noble Friend, anxious that there should be no feeling that criticism was being stifled, opened the terms,. not exactly of reference, but of direction, to the committee to include points which any hon. Member who had wished to take part in that Debate and been unable to do so, had wished to raise. Therefore, the terms of the inquiry were somewhat wider than the Debate itself. But it is quite clear that this was a committee to inquire into allegations of a specific character. Therefore, it is not fair to take this report, which specifically deals with these points, as a general report on the whole range of civil aviation. As it was a committee of inquiry, that was the spirit in which the Government accepted it. They did not accept it in a carping spirit, resenting criticisms and insinuations that, either recently or in the past, they have not done their job. They accepted the report in the spirit in which it was meant, namely, as a business document with the object of getting civil aviation into a better state than previously. That is the spirit in which the House would wish the Government to accept it.
With regard to civil aviation as a whole, I think that hon. Members will agree that, of the speeches made here to-night, the most comprehensive and statesmanlike was that by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton. He seemed to put the good and the bad, the rough and the smooth, the Continent and the Empire, the difference between our Imperial terrain and the United States of America, and internal routes. He put all these questions in their proper perspective, and dealt with the question of civil aviation as a whole and to an extent not dealt with in any of the other speeches.
The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has moved that public concern will not be allayed by the


explanations given and the action taken by the Government on this report, I think, overlooks what it is which really causes public concern. Genuine public concern would have been caused if it had been thought that civil aviation as a whole was in a bad way. When one considers that the Empire air services, which represent more than 90 per cent. of Imperial Airways activities, and the relations between the Government and Imperial Airways one realises that this is something which has been done quite well. It will be realised that the public are not likely to be concerned about this report. The only way they might have been concerned would have been if the recommendations had been received in a carping spirit by the Government. Nothing can go further to allay public concern than the practical and businesslike way in which the Government received the report and examined it. It is quite true that they disagree, and justifiably disagree, with some of the recommendations, but for the most part they whole-heartedly endorse and adopt the rest. Public concern, if it exists, will still further be allayed not merely by the spirit in which the Government have accepted the report, but by the honesty and sincerity with which the Government propose to deal with it.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I apologise for rising to address the House at this late hour, but I and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) and others have listened throughout the Debate and the previous day's Debate, and so great is my disquiet on this subject that I do not think I can fairly be asked to keep silent. I have had a feeling of disquiet throughout the Debate and now that I have listened to both the speeches of the Under-Secretary my feeling of disquiet is undoubtedly increased. I have had some experience of civil aviation throughout the world. It has been my good fortune to fly 80,000 miles on different civil air lines in many parts of the world, and wherever I go I find that the air lines of other countries are undoubtedly superior to those of our own. I can remember well an occasion two or three years ago when I flew 3,100 miles across the United States over-night. Where in this country is there anything

that could be compared with that experience?
Along with others, I was not in the least surprised that the Cadman Committee made such very sweeping recommendations. For some time it has been unpopular to say that anything was wrong in British civil aviation. I feel that the Air Ministry has been surrounded by too many "yes" men; people who were the apostles of complacency and who stated time after time that all is well with British civil aviation. After to-night's Debate, the Government and the Air Ministry will realise that the views of the House have now changed. Speaker after speaker has urged that more vigorous action should be taken by the Government, and I think I may fairly say that we want even more vigorous action than has been recommended by the Cadman Committee.
We can well understand that there may have been difficulties in the past because money was not available for civil aviation, and I can understand the tremendous effort for rearmament, but the civil side of the Air Ministry has fallen behind badly. It has been one of the great mistakes of civil aviation in this country that it has been tied to the tail of the Air Ministry. It ought to have greater consideration, almost another Department looking after civil aviation. I hope that the recommendation for the appointment of a new Under-Secretary in this House will receive better consideration from the Government. I, along with other hon. Members, am delighted that the Noble Lord, the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has undertaken duties in connection with the Air Ministry, but the whole balance of things is wrong, because as between civil and military aviation we have in the Cabinet two men looking after military aviation, and nobody in the Cabinet who can speak for civil aviation with the authority that a separate Minister could.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The Secretary of State is responsible for civil aviation equally with military aviation.

Mr. Robinson: I agree that he is equally responsible, but events have clearly shown that the work of rearmament is so great that he has not the time to look after civil aviation. It would have been very much better if the Noble Lord had been appointed to look after civil


aviation, because he comes in with vigour and zeal, and we all know well that new brooms sweep clean. I feel rather sorry for the Under-Secretary who for the past year or so has been left with this job and has had to come time after time to the House and tell us that all is well. Now he has to eat his own words if he is to carry out in full the recommendations of the Cadman Committee.
I do not want to deal at length with the work of Imperial Airways, but we have been profoundly dissatisfied. The House as a whole is pleased with the suggestion of a new responsibility for European air service. I must, nevertheless, pay a tribute to the great strides they have made recently in regard to the Imperial services. It is, however, only now, when trouble has arisen, that they are beginning to face up to their responsibilities. I should like to draw attention to the financial side of Imperial Airways. It is very wrong that a subsidised company should pay a dividend as high as 9 per cent. Nine per cent. is a big dividend when public money is contributing to it. On the financial side they have been wrong in not getting the money from the public on the best possible terms.
I want to reinforce what has been said about the service running to Norway. It was considered throughout aviation circles that the suspension of the service was only a temporary measure during the winter and that it would be resumed in the summer months. More consideration should have been given to this matter. I am also dissatisfied as to the position of British internal airways. This is just as important as lines operating to the Continent and foreign countries. One useful purpose of internal airways is to make our public air-minded. How can you expect British citizens to fly on British subsidised lines abroad if they never have the chance of flying at home?
We also want to develop these lines to give us a useful reservoir of air pilots. I stress that point specially. I compare the position with that of the Navy. The greatness of our Navy was built upon the foundation of our merchant shipping; and so it is with aviation. The greatness of our Air Force must be founded on a well developed and well balanced civil aviation. It is only in that way that we can create a demand for air liners and create a reserve of aircraft for which

the Cadman Report asks. I should like to see our internal aviation used as a link for our Imperial and Continental services. At present many of the air ports in this country are not being properly used.
On the question of our internal air lines there is a good deal of anxiety as to the way in which this work is being developed by the railway air services. Events have proved that those who entertained doubt as to the way in which internal aviation would be developed by the introduction of railway air lines have proved to be right. Let me quote one example. United Airways were running an efficient service between London and Blackpool, taking one and a quarter hours. Along came the railways Imperial airways group, and instead of doing pioneer work they set up a rival service from Blackpool to London. The result was that, there not being enough work for two companies, one of them had to go, and the railways airways group having more money behind them were able to continue. When they obtained a monopoly position the service at once deteriorated. Instead of running a service twice a day, it was run once a day; and instead of running direct to London there are now stops, and on one occasion I had to wait over an hour and a quarter for a connection at the Liverpool airport. The service was slow, and indeed the Maybury Committee said that it was quicker to travel by rail. I feel that we should have some assurance from the Government with regard to internal air services, and that they will not be merely a tail of the railway companies.
The same remark applies to the action of the Railway Clearing House in preventing bookings The Under-Secretary said that something is being done in this matter, but I would remind the House that for four years pressure has been exerted in order to remedy this scandalous position. Last year, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in addressing the House on the Air Estimates, was shocked to hear that such a position existed, and he promised some action. As a result of his action, the ban with regard to British Airways was removed, but it still exists in other cases. I cannot see any reason why the Government should not take a far stronger attitude towards the railway companies in this matter. After all, the railway companies


receive many benefits for which the Government are responsible, and they ought to be told that this situation must be remedied immediately, and not in a few months' or a few years' time.
I feel also that the Government might have done something to help internal air lines with regard to the Petrol Duty. It is all very well to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adamant in this matter, but the air lines do not pay the petrol tax with regard to their external services, and I do not see why an extra burden should be imposed on the internal services. On this the Cadman Committee were in full agreement with the view I have expressed. I feel that it is the duty of the Air Ministry, if necessary, to stand up to the Treasury and to say that the burden of the petrol tax is such that it is crippling British civil aviation and making it absolutely impossible to run internal air lines.
I would like now to say a few words about the provision of aircraft. It is true that we have no medium-sized air liners to compete with those of other nations. The United States and other countries have built up a big export market in which this country has no share. I consider that the only real encouragement that can be given to British aircraft constructors is to see that there are active internal air services in this country. If in that way they were guaranteed a home market, it would do a great deal more good for the manufacturers of aeroplanes than any subsidies or prizes offered for designs.
I would like to support the case that has been made concerning aerodromes. Airports in this country have been left almost entirely to the initiative of the local authorities. I believe it is a matter of national importance that the whole country should be linked up with airports which could be used equally in time of peace and in time of war. That is a matter which cannot be left to the foresight and good will of the local authorities. We have had many examples of vast sums of money having been spent on aerodromes by local authorities. Blackpool, for instance, spent £100,000 on equipping an airport, and they are losing £4,500 or more every year, largely because there is no traffic coming into the airport. There was a time when the Air Ministry had something of the spirit of

pioneers, and its officials and Ministers went round the country urging one local authority after another to build an airport, and practically promised that there would be sufficient business to justify the maintenance of those airports.
I think that the Government, in taking no action, are letting down the local authorities very badly. It is all very well to say that it is a matter for the local authorities—it is not. Now the Air Ministry say that they are going to try to co-ordinate activities. Does that mean that they are really going to get something done? I have not seen that spirit at the Air Ministry. In the matter of airraid precautions, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary are going about the country urging and helping local authorities to do their work, and the Government are paying part of the expense. I would like to see something of the same policy with regard to air ports. I would like to see the Ministry helping the local authorities with advice and money. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary to say that so many thousands are spent and go to the local air ports supported by municipal authorities. He gave a figure of £800,000 which goes to the training of Royal Air Force personnel. Of course it does, but that £800,000 does not find its way into the pockets of the local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: My hon. Friend will do me the justice of admitting that I did not say that it all went to the local authorities. I specifically said that it went "directly or indirectly." I hope he does not think that I claim that the £700,000 odd was paid directly to the civil air services. I hope I did not give that impression.

Mr. Robinson: My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that a certain amount of money was being spent and the inference was that a very large proportion found its way to the local authorities. I urge the Government to reconsider this matter and not to fall back on the old excuse that the Maybury Committee said "Do nothing about it." That Committee reported a year ago. The Cadman Committee has told us that the position now is just as bad as it was then. I ask the Air Ministry to get away from their old policy of adopting all the negative recommendations in these reports and sweeping


aside the positive recommendations. I think the Government might even consider setting up a further committee which would report on those matters on which the Cadman Committee did not report. If we could have a clean sweep by a new broom, we might be able to look forward to days of brightness for civil aviation. I believe the Cadman Committee carries the matter half way. I urge the Air Ministry to finish the job and finish it well.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Jagger: I would not have intervened had it not been for one matter with which the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt. I have been in the House long enough to know that hon. Members feel very keenly anything in the nature of an injustice done to individuals. I do not think any Member on either side of the House was satisfied with the flippant manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the dismissal of these pilots. Here were three men of exceptional qualifications. They joined their trade protection organisation and they were dismissed. They were told they were redundant, but at the time they were told that the firm was engaging new pilots. We are assured by the Minister that the Government director on the board of the company has assured him that he is satisfied that these men were not victimised for their trade union activities.
That assurance is not enough. The reputation and the livelihood of three of the foremost pilots in the country are at stake. Had these men been in the Army they would have been able to appear before a court-martial with a friend to put their case for them. Surely we are not going to give less justice to these men than would be given to a soldier no matter with what offence he was charged. We know that these men were not redundant. There must have been some other cause for their dismissal. That cause may have been the fact that they had joined their trade protection association. At all events, they were dismissed immediately after they did so, and the Minister has no right to be satisfied until he has seen these men and heard their evidence. I say that this House has no business to be satisfied until it has seen the evidence on which these men were dismissed, in circumstances which, so far as public knowledge goes, were circumstances which led

to a very strong suspicion that it was victimisation for trade union membership. There were 10 altogether, but three in particular were mentioned. I deeply regret, and I desire to protest against, the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with this matter. Surely he has some feeling for these men, and I think it might have been expressed in his manner rather more pleasantly than it was. Late as the hour was, I was not going to let this report go through before I had said what I felt and what I think scores of other hon. Members feel about this very unsatisfactory matter.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Perkins: I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on his very fine innings this evening. He nearly succeeded in playing out time, and I admired him for the skill with which he let the more difficult balls go past him without trying to hit them and for the skill with which he tried to hit the balls which looked as if they might be fairly easy. In order to clear up some of the points which have arisen, the answers to which I am afraid I did not quite understand, I propose once again to raise certain of these matters and to put certain specific questions, in the hope that the Under-Secretary of State will reply to them. Before doing that, however, I wonder if I might be allowed to offer my humble congratulations to Lord Cadman and his committee, not only for the speed and thoroughness with which they worked—and everyone respects them for that—but also for the outspoken document which they produced. It has certainly taken the lid off civil aviation and revealed it to the people of this country in its true light. As "Punch" rightly suggested by a cartoon last week, they have done a very great service to British civil aviation by giving it a thoroughly good spring clean. They have sown a seed, and whether that seed falls on stony ground among thorns or on good ground will depend on the attitude and the action, and not on the promises, of the Government. The Government—and I must congratulate them on it—are obviously alive to the situation and are anxious, I believe, to put it right. I do not want to-night to take part in any carping criticism of the Government's promises, but I propose to put forward one or two constructive ideas and at the same time to ask the Under-Secretary of State for


certain information which so far has been withheld.
First of all, there is the question of this booking ban imposed by the railway companies on various services. I heard the Under-Secretary's answer, but I am not satisfied with the position as it now is. He based his case solely on the fact that progress is now being made, that we are getting along slowly but surely, and that the ban on North-Eastern Airways has been lifted. I remember when this matter was first raised on the Floor of this House nearly three years ago, and during the last three years we have had promise after promise from various Under-Secretaries and various Ministers that something would be done, but at the end of three years the Under-Secretary has announced to the House that the booking ban on one company has been raised. But there are five others, and if we are to proceed at this steady rate of progress, it will be 15 years before the last booking ban has been raised. I, for one, am not satisfied with that, and I intend to go on to the best of my ability embarrassing the railway companies by every method in my power until the matter is put right.
With regard to the question of the proposed new European services, I welcome the fact that we are to have more services and that they are to be faster. It will be possible, I hope, one day, as a result of this increased subsidy, to separate the mails from the passengers. We cannot start these services now, even if we want to, because we have not any suitable machines in this country. It is only a matter of a dozen machines at the outside, and I suggest that we should not hesitate to go to America and buy the best machines that money can obtain in order to run these services. I am not Suggesting buying 100 or 200 machines; it is a matter of a dozen machines, and their purchase in America cannot affect the unemployment position in this country. We should get these machines in order to run some services in Europe, because I believe that services in Europe with foreign machines are better than no services at all. I want to press the Under-Secretary about the Air Navigation Act When he was asked whether this was to be amended he replied that it would be amended in time to be effective. That is rather an evasive answer, and I do not understand what it

means. I want to press the question I asked last week—will it be amended this Session? That is a perfectly fair question which can be answered by "yes" or "no." I see the Under-Secretary now talking to the "usual channels," and I hope he has got a satisfactory answer.
Then there is the question of Imperial Airways and the promised change in management. I welcome it, for I think it is important that there should be a change in management; but what is more important is a changed outlook of the company. Their outlook in the past has been the narrow outlook of a commercially minded company. We want something bigger, wider and broader from Imperial Airways than a narrow commercial outlook. They have been convicted by this Committee of being intolerant of suggestion and unyielding in negotiation. Can the Under-Secretary give an assurance that that policy will be changed and that the company will be tolerant of suggestion and yielding in negotiation? The question of dividends has been mentioned. I have read the report several times and I find that I misled the House when I spoke on a previous occasion by saying that the subsidy had been increased. I was wrong. It was not the subsidy, but the annual payments, that had been increased. I got the figures in answer to a question last week. If the total amount of money that was paid by the Air Ministry and the amount paid by the Post Office to Imperial Airways in 1936 are added together, they come to just under £1,000,000. The estimated expenditure for 1938 is just over £2,000,000. The increase is more than double. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he can give a definite assurance that he will give instructions to the Government directors on the board that as long as this company is receiving payments from the taxpayers in excess of £2,000,000 they will not pay another dividend of 9 per cent. If at the end of the year they find they have a large amount of money in their pockets, would it not be possible for some of it to be paid back to the taxpayers, some to be spent on research, and some on improving the pay and conditions of their workpeople?
I come now to the thorny subject of the pilots and the Whitley Council. I cannot help remembering when this matter was discussed on a previous occasion. On that occasion the right of col-


lective bargaining had been denied to these pilots by both the Air Ministry and by Imperial Airways. Through their president, the pilots asked for a round-table conference with the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State banged and bolted the door, and said "No." However, the situation has now completely changed. The Cadman Report has recommended that some form of Whitley Council should be set up. The association of which I am vice-president, the British Air Line Pilots' Association, which represents, I think, 82 per cent. of the pilots employed on regular air-line work, are willing to co-operate to the fullest extent with either Imperial Airways or with the Government in the working of a Whitley Council, or, in fact, any other scheme, provided that they are allowed to nominate their fair share of representatives on that council. Discussions have already taken place with one company, British Airways, and I would pay a tribute to the management of that company for the fair and sporting way in which they have carried on the negotiations. We have almost come to a decision. The pilots were meeting to-night and discussing a proposed arrangement, and I received a telegram while sitting here which says:
Pilots agree, subject to settlement of constitution.
It now looks as if the difficulties have now disappeared, so far as British Airways are concerned, and that we can look forward to a happy and contented time in the future, for both the pilots and the management of the company.
I regret to say that, as far as Imperial Airways are concerned, the door remains slammed. Not a single bolt has been withdrawn from that door during the last eight months. I am convinced that not one bolt will be removed from that door unless the Ministry can take drastic action against that company. The Under-Secretary made a concession to-night when he rather threw over the Government's previous attitude, which had been that of Pilate, saying: "We wash our hands of these things. This is a matter which must be settled between the pilots and Imperial Airways. We are not interested." I am glad that the Minister has told the House—and I want to thank him for it—that he is interested, and that he has given a definite assurance that

some form of Whitley Council will be set up. I am very thankful to him for having given that assurance.

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I do not think that I have ever denied that the Government were keenly interested in this question. They accepted the recommendation of the Cadman Committee relating to some form of effective representation, but I am sorry if the hon. Member misunderstood me about the Whitley Council. The Cadman Committee did not specifically recommend the Whitley organisation. They said—I think these are the words—
We consider that the Whitley Council has some advantages.
I was very careful to say that the Government did not bind themselves to any specific form of organisation or the recognition of any specific union, but they fully intend, through the influence which they exert on the Government directors, to see that the recommendation regarding collective representation made by the Cadman Committee, and accepted by the Government, is genuinely and honestly put into force in some way or other.

Mr. Perkins: I thank the Minister for that statement. It satisfies me. I particularly want to thank him for it. It is obvious to me that unless something had been done, and unless the Minister had made some definite statement, the victimisation which would have taken place in the next few months would not have been exceeded by the victimisation which is now going on in Austria.
I would now go on to the subjects of municipal aerodromes and internal air lines. I link the two together, because if one prospers the other prospers. The attitude taken up by the Ministry is rather that of washing their hands of the matter, perhaps only rinsing them in this case. On 29th October, 1928, a circular was sent by the Air Council to the chief municipalities urging them to build aerodromes, and therefore we are surely entitled to say that the Air Ministry are directly responsible for some of these civil aerodromes, because if that circular had not been sent half of them would never have been established. There was only one recommendation in the "Cadman Report which would help municipal aerodromes and internal air lines, and that was that they should be given a rebate on the petrol duty. That suggestion was


turned down by the Government. The airlines feel that they have been jilted and the municipal aerodromes are naturally heartbroken and feel they have been let down. Cannot the attitude of the Government, and particularly of the Air Ministry to the petrol tax rebate, be reconsidered before we come to the Budget, because in Committee on the Finance Bill we shall move again the usual Amendment to exempt internal air lines and flying clubs from that duty? I also ask the Minister whether he cannot make a definite statement of the Government's intentions respecting internal air services. Do they want internal air services? Do they want all the internal air services run by the railways? Do they want independent air services? Those are questions which could be answered by a simple "Yes" or "No," and it would be very much to the interests of civil aviation if the Minister would give an emphatic answer.
My last question concerns the export of civil aircraft. We have lost the export market and are beginning to lose the home market, and yet in spite of that lamentable fact paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 in the White Paper lead us to the conclusion that there is to be no change in policy, and that we are to have the same attitude of smug self-satisfaction. Tonight the Minister, when asked about it, told us that the matter was still under consideration. I will put forward just one suggestion. The competition which our manufacturers will have to face in the next three years comes from three types of aircraft, the Lockheed 14, the Douglas D.C. 4 and the Boieing Model 307. Those models are all more or less marketed now. Some of them are flying or will be flying in the near future. If we start now to make civil aircraft to compete with those machines we shall find ourselves two years behind. We shall produce a machine which is equivalent to the Lockheed 14 after the Lockheed 14 has been on the market for two years. These American machines will have proved themselves and be fully established. I suggest to the Minister that instead of trying to produce civil aircraft now we should buy from America for one year, or perhaps two years, and meanwhile concentrate on research and experiment with a view to producing a machine in three or four years' time not equal or superior to the

Lockheed 14 but superior to the next model, the Lockheed 15. If we start off along those lines, and if the Air Ministry and the designers and operators get together with the same spirit as when we set out to win the Schneider Cup, I believe that in three or four years we could win back these export markets.
I cannot help feeling that the next five years are going to see a great revolution in flying. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) told the House the other night that he learnt his flying in a balloon, and how 30 years ago the sport of ballooning gave way to the aeroplane. I cannot help feeling that the aeroplane as we know it may be on the road to obsolescence in five years' time, and that we shall be up in the stratosphere. [Laughter.] I know that hon. Members will think I am a dreamer, but if I am a dreamer I have the satisfaction of knowing that hard-headed business men in America who run the Pan-American Airways are also dreamers. Colonel Lindberg, technical adviser to Pan-American Airways, asked on 9th December, 1937, for tenders from the eight main manufacturers of aircraft in America for designs for a large fleet of aircraft. The specifications were as follows: One hundred passengers; a crew of 15; a range of 5,000 miles, and a speed in the stratosphere of 299 miles an hour.
Machines of that type will be flying in America in four or five years' time. Are we in England thinking in terms of such machines? Are we doing any experimental work with pressure cabins, or are we merely sitting back and hoping for the best? Unless somebody is thinking and experimenting along these lines now we shall be faced with the most acute competition in four or five years' time, far more acute than at present. If a machine of this type were bought by the Dutch Air Lines, capable of taking 100 passengers to India in 24 hours, we might wake up one morning and find Dutch Air Lines going to India with 100 passengers, leaving Monday morning at breakfast time and getting the passengers there on Tuesday morning. I beg the Air Ministry to come off their perch and forget that those paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 were ever written. I ask them for a change in outlook. Before it is too late, let them go ahead with vigour and


courage, and not take their hands from that plough before they get to the end of the furrow.

12.4 a.m.

Mr. Lyons: I intervene even at this hour as I am not willing that we should leave the important topic in its present state. With particular reference to the position of the pilots, I hope that we shall get an answer from the Under-Secretary when he replies to the Debate. We who spoke after him to-night do so with no intention of being discourteous, but because we felt that the matter was too fundamental to be left in the position in which we now find it. Is it too much to ask that the House of Commons shall be told why these pilots, men of experience, were dismissed from Imperial Airways? The hon. Member spoke in strong terms just now about what he considered the grave injustice to the men because they had joined some trade union. It may very well be that if we knew the reasons for the dismissal of these valued servants from Imperial Airways no injustice would be apparent at all to the minds of hon. Members. I do not know and I do not believe it should be left as it is.
We should like to know one or two matters in relation to the terms of their employment and I desire to ask more about the procedure adopted. I would like to know what were the allegations on which these men's employment was terminated; whether they were dismissed summarily or by being given a term payment of wages; and whether or not their contracts with Imperial Airways deprived them of the right to go to the courts if they so desired. It may be said that, if a big store in London terminates the employment of one of its highly paid officials, that is no concern of this House; but when you are dealing with Imperial Airways or any other subsidised concern, it is a matter of great moment to the House. I do not accept the reason of redundancy. I believe there was some reason—it may have been good or it may have been bad—far beyond that of redundancy, for terminating these contracts, and I think the House should be put in possession of the facts and circumstances. In any extension of civil aviation on Empire routes, these experienced men are key men. We ask no more than that ordinary fairness should be extended to them, and

that they should be told and the House should be told the reason why it was found necessary to put an end to their engagements.
As I understand it, the Cadman Committee sat in private, and we are told in the report that they held something like 30 sittings and received evidence both orally and in writing. This is not the time to discuss the general principle, but it is manifest from the report that, in addition to the 30 sittings, the committee had some evidence from persons and some from written statements. I appreciate the work of Lord Cadman and his colleagues but is it too much, at a time when we stand for no Star Chamber methods, to inquire whether the allegations against these pilots were made in their presence, and whether they were given the chance of dealing with and rebutting the allegations made? If these allegations were made in writing, behind the backs of these men—I make no suggestion; I do not know; but it is a matter on which the House is entitled to be satisfied—the position would, of course, be thoroughly unsatisfactory and one which, I think, the House would not accept. Were the allegations made verbally? Were the men there? What opportunity was given to them to deal with the position? Were they given the chance of calling evidence, if necessary, to rebut the allegations? To them this dismissal may well be a matter of life and death. If an experienced pilot is no longer fit to be employed by Imperial Airways, it may well be that he is unfit to be employed by any civil aviation line in this country. To them, it is nothing less than commercial life or death. All that the House wants to know is, Were these men dealt with properly and given every opportunity available of rebutting the allegations that were made?
There are strictures on Imperial Airways in the report. When you get a report of this nature, drawn up by Lord Cadman and his colleagues with what, I might be allowed to say respectfully, seems to be great thoroughness and care, the criticism always gets more notice than the commendation. But I am not satisfied from the report itself on the position taken up with regard to Imperial Airways. There may be grounds for criticism; but I would ask similar questions about Imperial Airways as I have just done about the pilots. Is it right


that the heads of Imperial Airways were called to give evidence at the beginning of the inquiry, without any charge being brought against them, and that it was only later that the allegations were made behind their backs? We are told that Imperial Airways were guilty of loose commercial practices, or, at any rate, practices that showed that the firm was not conducted as it should be—that the managing director was unyielding—findings almost of life and death against gentlemen holding high positions in this concern. The allegations may be right or wrong; but, before the Debate closes, I would like to know whether it is right that these gentlemen gave evidence at the beginning of the inquiry and that these charges were made subsequently without their being given an opportunity of rebutting them?
Was the managing director of this concern, against whom so much criticism was levelled, invited to go back to the witness chair and reply to the evidence against him? Was Sir George Beharrel, the chairman of the company, given an opportunity to answer allegations made against the company, which are very serious to a company existing very largely on a public subsidy? It may be that the attacks against the company were made in some of the written evidence which was submitted. It would be very unfair if the company and the gentlemen at the head of it were condemned on evidence read half-way or two-thirds of the way through the sittings, or on written evidence which they had no chance of rebutting. What weight written statements should carry in the minds of a Committee of this nature is not a matter now to discuss. In so important an issue it would be satisfying to know whether ample opportunity was given to those attacked to meet and deal with the charges after they were particularised. Let it be remembered that from any inquiry such as this there is no court of appeal.
Imperial Airways seem to have laboured for many years under conditions of a great deal of financial stringency. In years gone by there was not the money made available for their development that there is to-day, and, as the committee points out, in that function for which they were essentially established, the knitting together of the Empire, they have

shown an efficiency of which they may be proud. When dealing with criticisms of Imperial Airways, we ought to bear in mind those matters which are in favour of Imperial Airways. The report mentions the subsidies paid. These subsidies are nothing like the subsidies, in relation to passengers, that foreign companies have; yet this company has a wonderful record of speed and regularity in its services. No other hon. Member has mentioned what might be justly stated in the company's favour—that it is embarking on its third or fourth acceleration of services. Overcoming great difficulties in many countries with varying frontiers and climates the Empire services present an outstanding example of organised enterprise of which we can be proud. Let us remember the report does give praise as well as criticism. My hon. Friend who preceded me mentioned the obsolescence of their aircraft. It has been emphasised that for years Imperial Airways have had on order a better and more up-to-date type of machine, but the circumstances of the moment have been such that they have not been able to get delivery. These are matters which might well be taken into account when the House as a whole criticises recommendations made in the report of the Cadman Committee.
I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend on the vital question of internal air lines, and, on the general question which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) put to the Air Ministry. I ask, Is it the policy of the Air Ministry or not to encourage or promote airports and internal air lines? The present Secretary of State for Air came to the City of Leicester some three years ago and opened a very large and well-established airport. There were then functioning at that airport two or three regular air lines, which went across country, performing services in transport far beyond any hope we ever had from any railway company. Other air lines announced their intention of coming along routes which could well be served by the Leicester airport. For some months now there has been no animation of any sort or kind and no service of any description in that very extensive airport which the ratepayers of Leicester established. Is it the policy of the Ministry really to say that, on the finding of the Maybury Commission at that time and on that evidence,


it does not recommend subsidies being paid to internal air lines? If that is so, we might as well abandon for all time, any hope of maintaining or extending air services in this country. I believe that more encouragement and financial aid might well be given to promote and encourage internal air lines and to do something to help the airports and municipal aerodromes which have been established in the large cities, not under pressure from the Government, but by the encouragement and at the wish of the Government.
Is anything being done really to establish a central airport to take the place of Croydon? If we have to continue going from London to Croydon before we make an air journey, it will be only a question of time when, on the trip from here to France, we shall spend more time on the road than in the air. And from the point of view of danger, there is no comparison between the journey we have to make from London to Croydon by road and in going in an up-to-date machine across the Channel. Has anything been done to put an end to that scandalous position? Year after year plans are made but nothing is done. How much longer have we to put up with Croydon as the airport of the greatest city in the Empire? I remember a short time ago making a journey with my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) in one of his aeroplanes, flying a distance of something like 90 miles in about 50 minutes to Heston, from which it took something like 40 minutes to get to Westminster. The kind of thing I have just recounted tends to curtail civil aviation at a time when we want to encourage it. I trust that the Air Ministry will give speedy consideration to these matters and try to bring about some alteration for the benefit of civil aviation.
What is the reason for the delay in removing the ban at railway tourist offices against booking for travel by air? Why did it ever exist? It is not sufficient to say when the Air Estimates are being discussed that the matter is being looked into and that consideration is being given to it. What vested interest is standing in the way? Is there any reason why this blackmail should not have been ended three or four years ago when it was first brought to the notice of the Minister and when he never attempted to justify it? I hope that the

hon. and gallant Gentleman will reply and give us the information we ask for to allay the apprehensions we feel and to bring some kind of confidence out of the state of disquiet indicated by Lord Cadman's Committee.

12.21 a.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: At this late hour I want to touch on only one or two points. The Under-Secretary will have had the feeling of the House on this question of the dismissal of air pilots. Only yesterday one of the directors of the North-Eastern Airways asked me whether I would use my good offices to try to get some of these pilots restored to their posts, because some of them are penniless and without the means of life. I ask the Under-Secretary to look into the matter and see whether Imperial Airways cannot find posts for these men. What have these pilots done last year? Pilots of Imperial Airways have carried more than 70,000 passengers for over 6,000,000 miles, carried over 7,000,000 ton-miles of traffic and run the biggest fleet of commercial flying boats in the world. They have made 10 crossings of the North Atlantic ocean in accordance with prearranged time tables and have kept up to schedule; brought into operation the all-air Empire mail programme, which is a great landmark in the history of this country; made the first commercial Empire flight from England to New Zealand, 13,000 miles away, and established the first British trans-ocean air service between British possessions and the United States of America. This year they have been running a good service to Singapore and carrying 11½ tons of mails every week. If you count the postcards as letters, that means something like 9,000,000 letters a week, or 4½ times the amount carried by the Dutch air mail.
We ought to do everything we can for these pilots. They have made a great success of the Empire air mail service, thanks to the foresight of the General Post Office. It is a great scheme that you should be able to carry these letters from this country to all parts of the Empire, without surcharge. Imperial Airways ought to be congratulated on the success they have had in carrying these mails to all parts of the Empire. I notice that in another new schedule they are to speed up some of their work and to run seven services a week in each direction between


England and Egypt, three between England and Kisumu and two between England and Durban. On 10th April they will run from England to Cairo in one day five hours, to Khartoum in two days one hour, to Kisumu in two days twelve hours, to Mombasa in three days two and a-half hours, to Mozambique in three days nine and a-half hours and to Durban in four days ten hours. That is a very good achievement indeed. The England-India-Iraq-Australia service is to have four services a week in each direction between England and Calcutta, two between England and Singapore, two between England and Hong Kong and two between England and Brisbane.
The only criticism I have to make on the Cadman Committee's report is that they are very severe on Imperial Airways. Surely the record that I have just read out is a good one. They have delivered the goods, and all this destructive criticism of Imperial Airways is not good. In the past they have had very little money. Other nations have given more subsidies than they have had. On the whole, we ought to congratulate the directors of Imperial Airways and the managing director for the way in which they have handled this traffic. I agree with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Perkins) that there ought to be a whole-time chairman for Imperial Airways. You need a man of vision to run Imperial Airways and he should get around him a little handful of enthusiasts. It is not good for them to have too many business men on Imperial Airways.
One criticism I would make in the other direction is that Imperial Airways have not led enough. They have followed the aircraft industry. In America you will find that the big firms lead and do not follow the big companies. They do not follow the aircraft industry. They say exactly what they want and they get it carried out. I have been told that the managing director is unpopular, but you do not want a "Yes" man. You would not have all these services of the Imperial Airways if you had had a "Yes" man. He is a brusque man, and he seems to have delivered the goods pretty well. I cannot see that there is much to find fault with. It is said that he did not get on with the Director-General. There are Government directors on the Board of Imperial Airways; if things were

not going quite right surely those Government directors should have gone to the Air Minister and asked him to look into this or that question and put things right. So far as I can see they never attempted to do that, and it is very unfair to throw the whole blame on to the managing-director.

Mr. Lyons: Is it suggested that the Government directors of Imperial Airways should have direct access to the Air Minister, over the heads of their fellow-directors?

Sir M. Sueter: Yes, I think so. If things were going wrong it would be their duty to go to the Air Minister and say that perhaps the Director-General of Civil Aviation was not being conciliatory enough to the managing-director or that the managing-director was having friction, and so on, and it would be their duty to try to smooth things out. So far as I can see that is what they are there for. I would like to give to this House the opinion of an outside person, the Governor-General of the Straits Settlements, Sir Shenton Thomas, who wrote to the Air Minister the other day. The letter was published in the "Times" of 2nd March. He said:
I am glad to be able to say that pilots of the flying boats have no criticisms to make of our arrangements here, and the boats themselves surpass all other passenger machines. We are pleased that we have got the service, but the really good thing is that British commercial flying in the East is at last 'on top.' I hope it will stay there.

Mr. Perkins: Did I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say "at last on top"?

Sir M. Sueter: If the hon. Gentleman listened, I said:
British commercial flying is at last 'on top.' I hope it will stay there.
It is at last on top because they have a Short flying boat which they had not before. The necessity for economy in this country had delayed their production. That is a very great testimonial to the efficiency of Imperial Airways. I think I can well leave it at that.
Then it is stated in the Cadman Committee's Report that they are going to press on with the North Atlantic air service. I hope they will do that, because there will be a good deal of American competition in the near future in the North Atlantic. We want to keep up the


prestige of this country; and it is the same with the South Atlantic service. We are paying something like £100,000 to German and French operating companies now for taking our mails across the South Atlantic, and it is high time that the Air Ministry pressed on British Airways to develop that service, for we are losing prestige in the Argentine. They see German and French machines coming regularly across the Atlantic but no British machines. So the Argentines naturally judge us by what they hear over the wireless and what they see, and they think we are a decadent nation if we do not send aircraft to the Argentine. I hope the Air Ministry will press on with this service as soon as possible.
The report also deals with the question of seaplane bases. I want to ask the Under-Secretary what is happening about the Langstone Harbour seaplane base at Portsmouth? It is not fair to the pilots that they should be made to use Hythe, because there is a very restricted landing there, with yachts in the way and difficulty in manoeuvring. The Langstone Harbour scheme has been argued for the last two years, and it reflects no credit on anybody concerned. I hope that whether you have a high or a low level scheme for Langstone Harbour, the Air Ministry will see that it is pressed on, because it is most important.
I am glad to see from the report that the Diesel engine is to be developed, because it would be far safer from the point of view of fire risks, and so on, than is the petrol engine. In the case of submarines, we pressed for the Diesel engine instead of the petrol engine because of its greater safety, and we got it introduced. I think the Air Ministry should encourage the engineers of this country as much as possible to nurse the Diesel engine in the same way as the petrol engine. It would be a very advantageous thing for long distance flying. The consumption is 25 per cent. less, and the fuel much cheaper.
Then I want to join with other hon. Members in asking the Under-Secretary to give us a very clear idea of what is going to be done with regard to internal air services. We have two or three companies running internal air lines—North Eastern Air Lines and Allied Airways. They are feeling the pinch because they are getting no subsidy. From the defence point of view I want to see them encouraged

to train pilots. The other day when I raised this question I said that a foreign country within striking distance of this country had 50,000 pilots, and when the Under-Secretary spoke he questioned this figure and said he could not accept it. I wonder if he will accept this—it is not my statement. In Herr Hitler's February Reichstag speech he claimed to have 50,000 fully trained pilots with 3,000,000 in the course of training. I will read the actual words:
The German Flying Sport Union (Flugsportverband) counted 600,000 members in 1933, while the National Socialist Flying Corps had 3,000,000 members in 1937, of whom 50,000 were active airmen; the Flying Corps carried out its programme with the help of six power flights and 22 gliding schools, equipped with 400 powered and 4,600 glider planes.
Will the Under-Secretary accept that figure given by Herr Hitler in his speech that there are 50,000 trained pilots? I submit to the Government that we should look into the whole question of the training of pilots. I want to encourage schools and municipal aerodromes and to get Royal Air Force machines to fly to these aerodromes; we want to encourage air gliding also far more than we are doing. It is a very serious thing for the defence of the country that we have not got more pilots. Generally speaking, you can produce as many machines as you like. In the War we started with very few machines and soon reached towards the end of the War 300 machines a month—3,400 for the last year of the War, I think it was. You can produce these machines and increase their numbers, but it is a more difficult thing to train pilots; if they were not trained properly, you would lose a large number in a war. I ask the Under-Secretary and the Noble Lord to give this whole question of the training of pilots serious consideration, and, if necessary, to set up a committee to go into it, so that we may be able to get somewhere nearer the number given in Herr Hitler's speech of 50,000 trained pilots.

12.36 a.m.

Earl Winterton: I suggest that possibly the House will now be willing to come to a decision; I think that is the general wish of the House. [AN HON. MEMBER: "NO. A lot of Members want to speak."]

Earl Winterton: I am not preventing hon. Members speaking. It is more than the Rules of the House would allow for my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead) to make a reply for the third time, seeing that he has already spoken twice. The House will, of course, recognise that I am not as competent as he is to deal with matters which are not within the ministerial duties allotted to me, but I want to make one or two observations on them. In the first place, I recognise that there has been great interest taken in the question of pilots. I only wish to repeat what my hon. Friend said, that my Noble Friend is satisfied that there has been no victimisation. For the rest, I will undertake to convey to my Noble Friend the feeling which has been expressed in more than one portion of the House as to the anxiety which is felt over this matter; I will convey that with the greatest care. With regard to the question of the representation of pilots generally, I can only repeat the promise given by my hon. and gallant Friend that there will be collective representation, and if that does not take a form satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen, it will be open to them to question the Under-Secretary or myself.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down asked me a number of questions about the number of trained pilots. Frankly, I cannot be responsible for what Herr Hitler has said or for the accuracy of the figures he has given as to the number of pilots trained in Germany. But my hon. Friend is entitled to ask whether I am satisfied that there is in this country trained, or about to be trained, a sufficiency of pilots. My answer is that there is an ever-increasing number of pilots, both civil and military, being trained in this country.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Noble Lord must surely know that we are engaged in competition with Germany and that the number of pilots trained in Germany is a most relevant fact which should be within the knowledge of the Air Ministry?

Earl Winterton: It hardly arises, I think, on this particular report. That is a question which arises on the Air Estimates. It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) to say that the Air Ministry should be certain of the number of pilots

trained in Germany. The Germans are a little more careful about concealing their arrangements than we are sometimes. I do not want to appear not to be sympathetic to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) said. I think what he and other hon. Members said is perfectly true, and that it is most important that we should train the maximum number of pilots in this country. I will give a personal undertaking that I will do as much as possible to bring that about.
With regard to the question of internal aviation, I agree also that this is a most important matter and that it is highly desirable that internal aviation in this country should be as efficient and effective as possible. But as one who travels a great deal in commercial machines I would point out that the difficulties regarding commercial aviation in this country are infinitely greater than elsewhere. We have the best railway services in this country, and I would point out that we have a climate which is less suitable for aviation than many other countries and that the difficulties are very great.

Sir M. Sueter: I want to impress upon the Noble Lord that you want to develop these internal air lines for the training of pilots for defence purposes. You want a large number of pilots trained and you want to have them in the same way as we have the Mercantile Marine, which is called upon for the Navy.

Earl Winterton: I cannot go into that, but it is not right to give the impression that the huge number of pilots we are training shall be trained in that way. This matter is receiving the most careful attention, but it is not so easy as some hon. Members seem to think. I hope that the House will now be ready to come to a decision. Might I repeat that it will be my duty to convey to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State the criticisms, comments and expressions of opinion which have been put forward during the Debate.

Colonel Ropner: Before the Noble Lord sits down, is he going to add a word about the booking of fares?

Earl Winterton: I am sorry if I neglected that. I will undertake that this matter is put very accurately to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Perkins: Will the Noble Lord answer the question as to whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the Air Navigation Act this Session?

Earl Winterton: I apologise for missing that. I asked my right hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he would authorise me to give an undertaking and he says that if possible room will be provided this Session.

12.44 a.m.

Colonel Ropner: I do not want to delay the House for more than two minutes, but I want to make a suggestion which I feel will be supported by hon. Members. If the Government are not prepared to act in connection with the ban which railway

way companies make on the booking of tickets for air travel, then private Members in this House might take action. From time to time the railway companies promote private Bills in this House. While I understand that it would be beyond the Rules of Order for hon. Members to give reasons why they vote against those Bills, it is possible for us to vote against them in the Lobbies. I hope that hon. Members will combine and vote against them in this House until the ban is removed.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 67.

Division No. 149.]
AYES.
[12.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Radford, E. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsbotham, H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Grimston, R. V.
Rankin, Sir R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Apsley, Lord
Harbord, A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Henease, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. [...].
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hulbert, N. J.
Scott, Lord William


Brass, Sir W.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Bull, B. B.
Keeling, E. H.
Simmonds, O. E.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Butcher, H. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cazalet, Cant. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Latham, Sir P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Cross, R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Crossley, A. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
McKie, J. H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Dawson, Sir P.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Mellor. Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Warrender, Sir V.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wells, S. R.


Duggan, H. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Munro, P.
Wise, A. R.


Emery, J. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Everard, W. L.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Wragg, H.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Furness, S. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.



Gluckstein, L. H.
Porritt, R. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goldie, N. B.
Procter, Major H. A.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Captain Waterhouse.




NOES.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Bellenger F. J.
Daggar, G.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Foot, D. M.


Benson, G.
Dobbie, W.
Frankel, D.


Bevan, A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Burke, W. A.
Ede, J. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Cocks, F. S.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Grenfell, D R.




Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Simpson, F. B.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacLaren, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Marshall, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Muff, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Oliver, G. H.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.
Tinker, J. J.


Holdsworth, H.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Tomlinson, G.


Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Pritt, D. N.
Watson, W. McL.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ridley, G.
Westwood, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.



Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Observations of His Majesty's Government on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Civil Aviation.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Margesson.]

Orders of the Day — FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [Lords.]

Ordered, That so much of the Lords' Message [24th March] as communicates the Resolution, "That it is desirable that the Food and Drugs Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee of both

Houses of Parliament," be now considered.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before One o'Clock.